Search Results

https://expose-news.com/2023/09/15/after-hearing-this-you-wont-ever-want-to-vaccinate-yourself-or-your-kids-ever-again/ In a recent podcast Orthopaedic Surgeon Ahmad Malik had a conversation with Aaron Siri, Managing Partner of Siri & Glimstad LLP where they covered a whole range of topics regarding vaccinations. They claim that ‘Big Pharma has corrupted and captured our institutions, our regulatory bodies, the media, and our governments’ Doc Malik believes that after hearing what they have to say, “you won’t ever want to vaccinate yourself or your kids ever again” Aaron Siri has extensive experience in a wide range of complex civil litigation matters, with a focus on civil rights related to mandated medicine, class actions, and complex civil litigation, including handling multi-billion-dollar disputes. Siri & Glimstad LLP has over sixty professionals and robust practices in the areas of complex civil litigation, vaccine injury, vaccine exemptions, civil rights, immigration, multi-district litigations, and class actions. Regarding vaccines, Mr. Siri has, for over a decade, practiced in the area of vaccine injury and policy, and related litigation, has been involved in numerous high-profile cases related to mandated medicine, including challenging mandates for air travel, companies with over 100 employees, and members of the air force and army, as well as suing the FDA for release of the documents it relied upon to license Pfizer and Moderna’s covid vaccines. Aaron has also deposed numerous vaccinologists, infectious disease experts, and pediatricians about the safety and efficacy of various vaccines, including the world’s leading vaccinologist Stanley Plotkin. Prior to Siri & Glimstad, Mr. Siri was a litigation attorney at Latham & Watkins and clerked for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel. Mr. Siri earned his law degree at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Mr. Siri is regularly interviewed on national television for his expertise regarding various legal issues related to mandated medicine and has been published in numerous national print media outlets. (source) This interview: In the interview, Doc Malik, who says he is “on a journey of discovery when it comes to health and wellness”, was able to highlight many reasons why we can never trust big pharma vaccinations again, as Aaron “dropped one truth bomb after another,” including: – * Vaccine indemnity and the harm this has done * Poor quality of study designs universally when it comes to vaccines * The lack of placebo compartaive studies * The shocking lack of follow up, never mind long term even short term * The toxic components that make up most vaccines * The role of adjuvants * The role and toxic effects of aluminium in vaccines * The ever growing childhood vaccine schedule * The state of our chldrens health now compared to the 1980s pre indemnification * and so much more…. “I truly doubt anyone will ever want to vaccinate themselves or their loved ones again.” says Doc Malik, and I think he is right. Please listen to the podcast below.

Why was the CIA so invested in covering up that COVID came from a lab? Whistleblower who connected the dots was then arrested by the FBI..

https://expose-news.com/2023/09/15/20m-dead-2b-injured-covid-vaccination/ Peeling back the layers of deception and obfuscation reveals a shocking truth that may not be all that shocking to our informed readers: Covid-19 “vaccines” are injuring and killing far more people than the government is letting on. Estimates compiled from pieced-together data suggest that as many as 20 million people worldwide have died so far from the shots, while another 2.2 billion have suffered injuries – and we are only just getting started. “Add the EUDRA and VAERS adverse event data on deaths and “events” together, multiply by an under-reporting factor of 40, globalize the EU+US one-eighth share of 12.5 billion global doses. VAERS (take only the US data) 13,972 deaths and 854,084 adverse reactions to 5 August 2022 VAERS Summary for COVID-19 Vaccines through 8/5/2022 – VAERS Analysis EUDRA (ignore the headline and scoot to the first image on the landing page) 46,999 deaths and 4,731,833 injuries 76,789 Deaths 6,089,773 Injuries Reported in U.S. and European Databases Following COVID-19 Vaccines – Vaccine Impact Number of US injections = around 600m (increased to 608 million in the last few weeks) CDC COVID Data Tracker: Vaccinations in the US Number of EU injections = around 900m (increased to 915 million in the last few weeks) Number of global injections = around 12 billion (increased to 12.5 billion in the last few weeks) Coronavirus (COVID-19) Vaccinations – Our World in Data The Lazarus Report showing less than one in 100 vaccination injuries are reported – see page 6 of 7 that states – “..fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of “problem” drugs and vaccines that endanger public health.” Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS) (ahrq.gov) Using a one in 100 under-reporting factor (URF) would make the injections horribly deadly and injurious (1.4 million deaths and 85 million injuries for the 600 million doses administered). A more recent attempt at estimating the URF is around 40, here: Determining the VAERS Under-Reporting Multiplier (healthimpactnews.com) So, EU+US deaths = 13,972 + 46,999 = 60,971 deaths and EU+US injuries = 854,084 + 6,089,773 = 6,943,857 (multiple per person, half of which are “serious”). Multiply by 40 for URF and then by 8 to “globalize” Global deaths are around 19.5 million SO FAR and global injuries are around 2.2 billion. In the coming months and years, these figures will balloon even higher as lingering spike proteins progressively damage the bodies of the “fully vaccinated,” leaving them prone not only to every illness that comes along (autoimmune disease) but also to deadly clots (i.e., myocarditis and pericarditis). It requires a bit of digging to come up with the aforementioned figures as governments work overtime to keep all pertinent data hidden, or at least confusing. The way post-injection injuries and deaths are calculated varies from country to country and even from municipality to municipality, making it difficult to come up with accurate numbers. The safety and effectiveness claims for the shots are also highly skewed, one way being how “cases” of the Fauci Flu are determined. All throughout the alleged pandemic, illnesses and deaths were falsely attributed to the “virus” so that later the injections could be framed as the “cure.” In 2020 before the official launch of the vaccines, the annualized rate of covid “cases” was around 70 million – and keep in mind that the official definition of a “case” is still just as murky today as it was at the beginning of the “pandemic”. Following the launch of Operation Warp Speed in the USA, the annualized number of Covid cases increased nearly fivefold to 330 million. The annualized mortality rate also increased from 1.7 million pre-Operation Warp Speed to 2.9 million post-Operation Warp Speed. This is significant because it shows that the shots are not “saving lives” as is still being claimed. The opposite is actually true as many more people are getting sick and dying in the injection era. “Rather than a 95% (or 91% in the trials) reduction in cases and deaths, there has been a 370% INCREASE in the annualized case rate,” writes Peter Halligan on his Substack. “Annualized Deaths have INCREASED by 180%.” Halligan looked at data in the government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to come up with the 20 million dead and 2.2 billion injured figures. Since VAERS only captures a very small percentage of actual vaccine-related adverse events, Halligan extrapolated true figure estimates using multiplication. The “butcher’s bill from the battlefield,” as he calls it, points to these figures being far more accurate than anything the government or Big Pharma are admitting. And were these figures to spread widely across the population, there would surely be a whole lot of angry folks with a lot of questions for the powers that be.

https://expose-news.com/2023/09/13/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-cholesterol-lies/ Despite what the “experts” might tell you, cholesterol is cholesterol. There is only one type of cholesterol and it is a high molecular weight organic molecule (an alcohol or a sterol) found only in animal foods such as meat, fish, cheese, eggs, and butter. Cholesterol is an essential nutrient that is necessary for maintaining and repairing every cell membrane in your body. It plays an important role in immunity and synthesizing hormones. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Cholesterol Lies. by Simon Lee, Science Officer, Anew UK. Cholesterol is a precursor to vital corticosteroids, and to sex hormones like androgen, testosterone, oestrogen and progesterone. It is a precursor to vitamin D, a vital fat-soluble vitamin essential for healthy bones and nervous system, proper growth, mineral metabolism, muscle tone, insulin production, reproduction and immune system function. It is the precursor to bile salts, which are essential for digestion and the assimilation of dietary fats. Recent research has shown that cholesterol acts as an antioxidant thereby helping to reduce oxidative damage in the body. Cholesterol is required for the proper function of serotonin receptors in the brain. Serotonin is one of the body’s natural “feel-good” neurotransmitters. This explains why low cholesterol levels have been linked to aggressive and violent behavior, depression, and suicidal tendencies. Breast milk is especially rich in cholesterol and also contains a special enzyme that helps the baby utilize this nutrient. Babies and children need cholesterol-rich foods throughout their growing years to ensure proper development of the brain and nervous system. Dietary cholesterol also plays an important role in maintaining the health of the intestinal wall, which is why low-cholesterol vegetarian diets can lead to leaky gut syndrome and other intestinal problems. Your doctor probably forgot to mention all of the above. The Ugly Lies That Demonised an Essential Nutrient In 1954 a Russian researcher called David Kritchevsky published a paper describing the effects of feeding cholesterol to vegetarian rabbits. He discovered that cholesterol added to vegetarian rabbit chow caused the formation of atherosclerotic plaques that can block arteries and contribute to heart disease. At the time, scientists were aware that there had been a dramatic increase in heart disease compared to the beginning of the twentieth century when heart disease caused no more than 10% of all deaths, much less than diseases such as pneumonia and tuberculosis. By 1950, Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) was the leading cause of death in the United States, causing more than 30% of all deaths. The Kritchevsky papers lent apparent support to the lipid hypothesis which is the idea that saturated fat and cholesterol from animal-based foodstuffs raise cholesterol levels in the blood, leading to deposition of cholesterol and fatty material as pathogenic plaques in the arteries. Kritchevsky’s animal findings were assumed to be relevant to the human CHD problem. The lipid hypothesis was assumed to be a valid explanation for the new epidemic of heart disease which, it was assumed, could be avoided by reducing animal products in the diet. However, in the years that followed, several population studies showed that the animal model, especially one based on vegetarian animals, was not a valid approach to studying heart disease in human omnivores. One study on the Japanese population showed that the Japanese had almost as much pathogenic plaque as the Americans even though the Japanese diet at the time was much lower in animal products and fat. A 1957 study of the mostly vegetarian Bantu found that they had as much plaque buildup in the arteries as other races from South Africa who ate more meat. A 1958 study found that black Jamaicans had a degree of atherosclerosis comparable to that found in the US, although they suffered from lower rates of heart disease. The 1968 International Atherosclerosis Project, in which over 22,000 autopsies were performed in 14 different countries showed the same degree of atheroma in all parts of the world. The same degree of atheroma was found in populations that consumed large amounts of fatty animal products compared to those that were mostly vegetarian. The same degree of atheroma was found in populations that had a great deal of heart disease and in populations that had very little or none at all. A 1994 study in the Lancet showed that almost three-quarters of the fat in artery clogs is unsaturated. Indicating that the “artery-clogging” fats are not animal fats but vegetable oils. All of these studies pointed to the fact that the lipid hypothesis was wrong and could not explain what caused the tendency towards fatal blood clots that caused myocardial infarction (heart attack) in humans. Atherosclerosis Since Kritchevsky’s early studies, many other trials had shown that serum cholesterol can be lowered by increasing consumption of polyunsaturates. The physiological explanation for this is that when excess polyunsaturates are incorporated into the cell membranes, resulting in reduced structural integrity or “limpness,” cholesterol is sequestered from the blood into the cell membranes to give them “stiffness.” The problem was that there was no proof that lowering serum cholesterol levels could lower the risk of CHD. The Framingham Study, which began in 1948, included 5,209 people from Massachusetts and was instrumental in starting the myth that high total cholesterol is a major risk factor for heart disease. What the Framingham Study actually found was that there was virtually no difference in Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) “events” for people with cholesterol levels between 205 mg/dL and 294 mg/dL which is the vast majority of the US population. Even for those with extremely high cholesterol levels—up to almost 1200 mg/dL, the difference in CHD events compared to those in the normal range was trivial. The study found that for people in their 50s, 60s and older as cholesterol DROPPED, mortality rate INCREASED. This did not stop Dr. William Kannel, the Framingham Study Director at the time, from making outrageous claims about the Framingham results. He said: “Total plasma cholesterol is a powerful predictor of death related to CHD.” It wasn’t until more than a decade later that the real findings from Framingham were published, in an obscure journal, without fanfare. Dr. Kannels successor, Dr William Castelli admitted: “In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people’s serum cholesterol. . . we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories weighed the least and were the most physically active.” Dr George Mann who was once involved with the Framingham study went on to study the Masai in Africa, whose diet is extremely high in cholesterol and saturated fat, but they have virtually no heart disease. This convinced him that the lipid hypothesis was “the public health diversion of this century. . . the greatest scam in the history of medicine.” This made him determined to raise public awareness by organizing a conference in Washington DC in November of 1991. In Mann’s invitation to conference goers, he wrote: “Hundreds of millions of tax dollars are wasted by the bureaucracy and the self-interested Heart Association. Segments of the food industry play the game for profits. Research on the true causes and prevention is stifled by denying funding to the ‘unbelievers.’ This meeting will review the data and expose the rascals.” The “rascals” did their best to stop the meeting from taking place. Promised funding was subsequently withdrawn, forcing Mann to pay for the event himself. A press release falsely claiming the conference had been cancelled was issued to speakers and participants. Several speakers did actually cancel after being warned that attendance would jeopardise future funding. Against all the odds the conference did go ahead and Dr. George Mann used the platform to speak out: “You will see, that many of our contributors are senior scientists. They are so for a reason that has become painfully conspicuous as we organized this meeting. Scientists who must go before review panels for their research funding know well that to speak out, to disagree with this false dogma of Diet/Heart, is a fatal error. They must comply or go unfunded. I could show a list of scientists who said to me, in effect when I invited them to participate: ‘I believe you are right, that the Diet/Heart hypothesis is wrong, but I cannot join you because that would jeopardize my perks and funding.’ For me, that kind of hypocritical response separates the scientists from the operators—the men from the boys.” The Manufacturing of the Fake Cholesterol “Consensus” The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT) studied the relationship between heart disease and serum cholesterol levels in 362,000 men and found that annual deaths from CHD varied from slightly less than 1 per thousand at serum cholesterol levels below 140 mg/dL, to about 2 per thousand for serum cholesterol levels above 300 mg/dL, once again this is a trivial difference. An unexpected MRFIT finding the media forgot to report was that deaths from all causes (cancer, heart disease, accidents, infectious disease, kidney failure, etc.) were SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER for men with cholesterol levels below 160 mg/dL. The NHLBI, who had run the MRFIT trial, went on to sponsor the so-called National Cholesterol Consensus Conference. When an attendee accidentally picked up some papers before the conference had even begun she was surprised to discover that the “consensus” report had already been written. Dr Edward Ahrens, a respected researcher, raised strong objections about the so-called “consensus,” but he was told that he had misinterpreted his own data and that if he wanted a conference to arrive at different conclusions, he should pay for it himself. The 1984 Cholesterol Consensus Conference final report was a preordained whitewash, which made no mention of the large body of evidence that conflicted with the lipid hypothesis. The many objectors to the whitewash were ignored and the final report of the Cholesterol Consensus Conference called for mass cholesterol screening. Acting against good scientific evidence the medical bureaucracy picked a cholesterol level that would place the vast majority of the American adult population “at risk” for heart disease. This ensured that the lucrative screening program would need to be carried out on a massive scale. The report recommended that all Americans now defined as “at risk” should avoid saturated fat and cholesterol and specifically advised replacing butter with margarine. The “Consensus” Conference also spawned the nationwide US National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP), which had the stated goal of “changing physicians’ attitudes.” The general population had bought into the lipid hypothesis and was obediently using margarine and eating low-cholesterol foods, but the medical profession remained sceptical. “Physicians Kits” were sent to all doctors in America, who were indoctrinated about the supposed importance of cholesterol screening, the supposed advantages of cholesterol-lowering drugs, and they were told to recommend margarine rather than butter. The hospitals, laboratories, pharmaceutical companies, the vegetable oil industry, margarine manufacturers, food processors and, of course, doctors would benefit enormously from the mass screening of cholesterol levels in all adults. A multi-billion dollar industry was created by turning healthy people into patients based on their cholesterol number. It has been a public health disaster. “I began my practice as a cardiologist in 1921 and I never saw an MI patent until 1928. Back in the MI-free days before 1920, the fats were butter and lard and I think that we would all benefit from the kind of diet that we had at a time when no one had ever heard the word corn oil.” Dr. Dudley White Many people with normal cholesterol levels may have heart attacks and studies in the elderly have shown that those with the LOWEST levels of cholesterol are at HIGHEST risk of death from all causes. A comprehensive review of the literature in 2018 found that “LDL-C Does Not Cause Cardiovascular Disease”. The authors ( Uffe Ravnskov et al.) discovered “obvious falsification of the cholesterol hypothesis … the conclusions of the authors…are based on misleading statistics, exclusion of unsuccessful trials and by ignoring numerous contradictory observations.” They went on to say: “The idea that high cholesterol levels in the blood are the main cause of CVD is impossible because people with low levels become just as atherosclerotic as people with high levels and their risk of suffering from CVD is the same or higher.” The Good and the Bad According to the “experts,” there are two main kinds of cholesterol: the “good” cholesterol or High Density Lipoprotein (HDL), and the “bad” cholesterol or Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL). Because cholesterol is not soluble in water it is transported around the body attached to these lipoprotein particles. LDL is referred to as “bad” cholesterol because it is often found in the walls of diseased arteries afflicted with atherosclerosis. HDL, is called the “good” cholesterol, because it is thought to help remove cholesterol from the arteries. An LDL particle is a type of lipoprotein made by the liver. One of its functions is to deliver cholesterol and triglycerides from the liver to other cells in the body. High Density Lipoprotein (HDL) and Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterols are complex particles that contain exactly the same cholesterol. It is only the carriers that are different. There are two types of LDL particle, namely, large and buoyant, and small and dense. The small and dense LDLs are considered to be much more atherogenic, whereas the large, buoyant LDLs are considered to be less atherogenic. About 80% of total LDL cholesterol level consists of the large, buoyant LDLs, with small, dense LDL making up the remainder. People with more large, buoyant LDLs are categorised as Pattern A type of cholesterol profile, and these people are said to be at low risk of atherosclerosis. People with more small, dense LDLs are categorised as Pattern B cholesterol profile and are said to be at higher risk of atherosclerosis. Their markers for metabolic disease risks may also be raised. Interestingly, fats increase large, buoyant LDLs and decrease small, dense LDLs, whereas refined carbohydrates increase small, dense LDLs. Research has found that consumption of refined carbohydrates is more relevant than saturated fat in the causation of coronary heart disease. This idea that there are “bad” and “good” blood lipids that contribute to heart disease has added further complexity to the lipid hypothesis. It would seem that the only way to prevent the whole scam from being exposed is to keep adding more complexity to the story on a regular basis. An Inversion of the Truth What your doctor will not tell you (because they most likely do not know) is that cholesterol carrying lipoproteins are essential for innate immunity to infection and for muscle growth. Blaming heart disease on high cholesterol levels is like blaming firefighters for starting the fires. Infection and inflammation are associated with marked changes in lipid and lipoprotein metabolism. Besides their role in lipid transport, lipoproteins participate in innate immunity, which is the first line of defence against invading microbes. The changes in lipoproteins during infection/inflammation help protect against the harmful effects of the microbes and their toxins. These changes result in increased cholesterol delivery to immune cells and decreased reverse cholesterol transport (from the periphery back to the liver). The lipoproteins are part of the Acute Phase Response (APR) to infection which protects against injury by neutralising invading microbes, minimising the extent of tissue damage, participating in the local immune response, and replenishing and regenerating damaged tissue. Bacterial infection stimulates increased activity of the enzyme HMG-CoA reductase which is crucial in the mevalonate biosynthetic pathway of cholesterol production. The lucrative cholesterol lowering drugs statins, inhibit this important enzyme, which is crucial in providing innate protection against invading microbes and their toxins. Ordinarily when bacteria are sensed, the clearance of LDL from the circulation is significantly inhibited. Statins have the opposite effect, causing an increase in cellular LDL receptors, resulting in an increase in cellular LDL uptake, thereby removing protective LDL from the circulation. Adequate lipoprotein levels are needed to block and neutralise the bacterial toxins that induce fever, hypotension, circulatory collapse, and death due to sepsis. Lipoproteins can help neutralize the lethal effects of bacterial toxins by accelerating their clearance from the blood, redirecting them away from monocytes and macrophages, decreasing immune cell activation, and reducing the release of cytokines, thus attenuating toxicity and preventing sepsis. What’s bad about that? Lipoproteins also protect from certain parasitic infections namely trypanosomes, schistosomes, and malaria. What’s bad about that? Furthermore, infection is often associated with cellular injury, and areas of injury may need extra cholesterol for new membrane synthesis and repair. The changes that occur to the structure, composition, and function of lipoproteins during infection are the same as those proposed to promote atherogenesis. This is not a coincidence. Studies have shown that the risk and/or incidence of coronary artery disease (CAD) is higher in people with infections. Several different specific microbes have been detected directly in atherosclerotic lesions of arterial walls. The bacteria that cause chronic dental infections have been detected in atherosclerotic plaques and they possess all of the capabilities needed to cause atherosclerosis. These same dental bacteria also cause the supposedly incurable and chronic autoimmune/inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis as well as Alzheimer’s disease. LDL delivers essential cholesterol to tissues for repair, and HDL, the good cholesterol, cleans up after the repair is done. The more LDL you have in your blood, the better you are able to build muscle during resistance training. What’s bad about that? According to Dr. Steve Riechman, a researcher at Texas A&M University: “LDL is not the evil Darth Vader of health it has been made out to be in recent years.” Dr. Riechmans team has shown that people with the highest levels of LDL cholesterol gain the most muscle mass after working out. “We need to change this idea of LDL always being the evil thing—we all need it, and we need it to do its job.” Dr. Steve Riechman Conclusions There is only one type of cholesterol and it is an essential nutrient that is vital for good health. What doctors often refer to as “good” and “bad” cholesterol are actually complex carrier lipoprotein particles. There is nothing “bad” about LDL, in fact it plays an important role in protection against microbes and their toxins as well as in muscle growth. Despite this many doctors have been indoctrinated and are financially induced to lower LDL levels in their patients often using toxic harmful drugs like statins. References 1) The Oiling of America MARCH 29, 2006 BY SALLY FALLON AND MARY G. ENIG, PHD Copyright © 1999 Mary G. Enig, PhD and Sally Fallon. First Published in Nexus Magazine, December 1998-January 1999 and February 1999-March 1999. (Source) 2) LDL-C Does Not Cause Cardiovascular Disease: a comprehensive review of current literature (2018) Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology. Uffe Ravnskov et al. (source) 3) Cholesterol: It’s All Good. HEALTH VIEWPOINTS Epoch Times, Margie King. Mar 21 2023 (source) 4) ‘Bad’ Cholesterol May Not Be So Bad. Epoch Times, Marina Zhang (source) 5) Effects of infection and inflammation on lipid and lipoprotein metabolism: mechanisms and consequences to the host. Journal of Lipid Research Volume 45, (2004) Weerapan Khovidhunkit et al. (source)

https://expose-news.com/2023/09/15/lab-report-discovers-graphene-in-the-covid-19-vaccines-scientists-believe-the-vaccinated-are-transmitting-it-to-the-unvaccinated/ Lab Report discovers Graphene in the Covid-19 Vaccines; & Scientists believe the Vaccinated are transmitting it to the Unvaccinated The Covid-19 vaccines have been forensically examined in the United Kingdom and a laboratory report confirms they contain graphene nanomaterials that can penetrate the body’s natural barriers and damage the central nervous system, and Graphene Oxide which can damage internal organs, destroy blood health, trigger cancer, and cause changes in gene function among a host of other ill effects. Unfortunately, further analysis by Dr Phillipe van Welbergen has concluded that the graphene is being transmitted from the vaccinated to the unvaccinated, destroying red blood cells and causing dangerous blood clots. Following her own experience with patients who had suffered apparent vaccine injury and adverse reactions, a British Medical Practitioner came forward in December 2021 offering to assist in an investigation to ascertain whether the results discovered by Dr’s Noack and Campra could be replicated in the UK and also to examine the COVID-19 injection vials for the discovery of toxins or unexpected contents. The medical practitioner seized an injection vial from the fridge housed in the surgery in which she works and handed it to an independent investigator assisting in investigating cases relating to an injury sustained as a result of injections given as part of the rollout. Further vials have since been obtained which cover the three main manufacturers in the UK: Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca. The contents of the injection vials have been forensically examined and a laboratory report has now been officially published. The report titled “Qualitative Evaluation of Inclusions In Moderna, AstraZeneca and Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines” has been presented to the Police involved in the UK Criminal Case, 6029679/21, which is said to provide them with more than enough reasonable suspicion that serious indictable offences have been committed regarding the administration of experimental treatments. The report contains the toxicology reports of injection vials that have been forensically examined, with findings that provide “more than enough grounds” for the Police to apply for the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Warrant and seize injection vials for themselves. The Police will then be able to submit them to a Home Office Laboratory with a view to replicate the findings and will enable them to possess their own hard evidence to support serious indictable offences. Additionally, the police, in line with the duty of care to the public, have been asked to request the immediate cessation of the experimental treatment rollout. The Report: Qualitative Evaluation of Inclusions In Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines – by UNIT Four vaccine vials were the subject of the investigation. Two Moderna samples, and 1 AstraZeneca, and 1 Pfizer sample were collected for examination in order to analyse the contents and identify if undeclared components were present in them. Here is the list of declared ingredients in each vaccine by the manufacturers – The inclusions that are not declared by the manufacturers were the focus for this particular analysis, primarily graphene and carbon-related nanostructures in form of carbon or graphene composites, graphene in association with polyethylene glycol, graphene oxide, iron oxide compounds, and calcite. The Four Vials The analysis of all four vial contents identified objects that are similar and have been defined and illustrated within the report individually. The Identified inclusions were: 1. Graphene nano ribbons coated with Polyethylene Glycol 2. Graphene Composite Form 1. 3. Graphene Composite Form 2. 4. Microcrystalline Calcite with Carbonaceous inclusions. 5. Graphene Nano Form with and without fluorescence 6. Graphene nano objects 7. Graphene nano scrolls Moderna 01 The first sample that was evaluated was the Moderna 01 which was examined by Raman spectroscopy. The investigation clearly showed that all the inclusions within the vaccine have a strong carbon signal with confirmed graphene compositions of some representative forms. Two clear signals were obtained from two objects. The flat ribbon-like inclusions exhibited clear graphene spectra integrated with the spectrum of glycol and other minor compounds. The other clear signal was obtained from a calcite microcrystalline form and Carbon composite forms also had a clear graphene signal. It is important to point out that some nano amorphous carbon forms showed a clear Graphene signal, however, these forms also exhibited fluorescence which masked the Graphene peak. Moderna 02 Particles that carry the mRNA load were clearly seen and Graphene composite 01 was prominently present even at low resolution and Graphene Nano objects were present in “great abundance.” within the vial sample. AstraZeneca AstraZeneca was the third vaccine that was evaluated for its inclusion, and as it was almost transparent it made “spotting of inherent colours slightly easier”. Under wet microscopic observation, the solution exhibited instantaneous movement of nanoscopic particulate material which when observed closely seemed to be driven by convection current. When dry, the particles exhibited traction movement. In figure, 3.21. the microscopic form is clearly visible as it is lying on top of the solid film while the nanoparticles are still in motion in the background as can be seen by the shifting position of the shadow. A clear output of this mechanism was that as the medium solidified, it became more difficult for the nanoparticles to navigate through the viscous material. Confirmed inclusions within AstraZeneca were of the presence of Graphene in all the identified representative forms. The carbon composites are of two forms as they are in the Moderna vaccines. These two forms showed distinct graphene signatures. Also, besides Graphene the spectrum is dominated by iron oxide and other forms of carbon associations. Pfizer Pfizer was the fourth vaccine vial that was evaluated for its inclusions. The pipette specimen showed some extremely interesting inclusions. As the material was sucked into the pipette, distinct translucent to transparent sheets were seen floating about as seen in figure 3.28. Three of these samples showed carbon composite signatures with possible graphene in. The signals of amorphous carbon-like materials were extremely complex with carbon along with iron oxide and several other compounds in them. Ribbon forms of nearly transparent microforms are found in fair numbers in the slide. These are often half embedded in the solution with one end projecting outside the material. The carbon composites of both form 1 and 2 also are present in great numbers. Form 1 settles on top of the material while form 2 is found at mid-levels of the solidified medium. Graphene nanoforms are present in fair numbers within the slide material along with some scrolls. Figure 3.32. Representative inclusions found within Pfizer vaccine. The signals of amorphous carbon-like materials were extremely complex with carbon along with iron oxide and several other compounds in them. The graphene complex 1 is graphene with polyethylene glycol signal forming the bulk of the spectrum. Though, for initial assessments, this study can confirm the presence of graphene in Pfizer. Notably, one of the samples that was shot, displayed a fair influence of fluorescence. To Conclude All three vaccines commonly employ the self-assembling lipid nanoparticles as drug delivery mechanisms. Where the central find of this project has been the confirmation of the presence of graphene in all four samples, it is important to evaluate this find in the context of the subject itself. It is also important to mention, that the source of fluorescence within the samples was unknown while the investigations were underway, and due to tight timescales were not able to be investigated at the time. An Open Access review highlighting the toxicity of the graphene family nanoparticles can be viewed here. Source In conclusion, it can be stated that the four samples of vaccines (Moderna 1, Modern 2, AstraZeneca, Pfizer) all contain significant amounts of carbon composites, graphene compounds, and iron oxide. These ingredients were undeclared by the manufacturers and are absent from the list of ingredients for the vaccines. However, studies show how dangerous the Graphene family is, yet individuals have not been made aware that they are being injected with the deadly substance. The lab report can be read in full here. Another analysis of blood samples conducted by Dr Philippe van Welbergendemonstrated that the graphene being injected into people is organising and growing into larger fibres and structures, gaining magnetic properties or an electrical charge and the fibres are showing indications of more complex structures with striations. He also, unfortunately, demonstrated that “shards” of graphene are being transmitted from “vaccinated” to vaccine-free or unvaccinated people destroying their red blood cells and causing blood clots in the unvaccinated. The full report on graphene “shedding” can be read in full here.

Isn’t it interesting that so many so called “iconic Australians” who pushed the pokes, have never had a single word to say about the astounding numbers of vaccine injured and dead.

Everyone needs to see this. If you know someone who is jabbed, this is the way out. This whole Plandemic is Satanic, demonic and evil. You will see a whistleblower of a very different kind explain what the covid jabs are designed to do, and the 'vaccine's' connection with evil.

https://kirschsubstack.com/p/do-you-know-what-safe-and-effective?r=1cmbts&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post STEVE KIRSCH SEP 13, 2023 Executive summary The CDC now recommends updated Covid-19 vaccines for everyone 6 months and older. Here’s the CNN story on the CDC approval. What is the evidence for safety and effectiveness? 1. It was tested on 50 people and only 8% needed to see a doctor after the shot. And none of the 50 people died! 2. There was no evidence whatsoever it had a clinically meaningful benefit for anyone. 3. It wasn’t tested on anyone under 12, but was being recommended for 6 months and older. Only one CDC panel member had a problem with this. The rest of the ACIP committee members (outside committee of the CDC) didn’t seem to mind recommending it for people it was never tested on. We now have clear evidence that the FDA simply ignores evidence which doesn’t support the narrative Watch this video. Basically, in a meeting with top FDA officials including Peter Marks that was secretly (but not illegally) recorded, the FDA experts admit that if the data doesn’t support their narrative (even if it is from a gold standard randomized controlled trial), they ignore it (listen starting at around the 4:00 minute mark). And a huge failure of the VAERS system (a 7 year old dies shortly after the vax from cardiac arrest and there is no follow up) doesn’t shock the FDA officials. They said to send them an email about it. Watch the video and read the entire thread Summary If you think that the CDC and FDA exist to protect you from unsafe medical products, you are very badly mistaken. The two examples provided in this very short article should make this very clear to anyone.

The original video entitled, "The Truth IS anti-Semitic" was produced and narrated by Patrick Willis from Snordster channel and the text is from a Rebel of Oz editorial.

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/09/14/shrimp-mrna-vaccine.aspx It's the No. 1 favorite seafood in many countries, and the mRNA vaccines are now coming for it. Continuing to fly under the radar so the public remains unaware, the mRNA-based vaccines have been used in pork since 2018. mRNA shots have also been developed for birds and cattle. mRNA Vaccines Now Headed for Shrimp STORY AT-A-GLANCE ViAqua Therapeutics, an Israeli-based biotechnology startup, has secured $8.25 million in funding for its oral RNA-based shrimp vaccine The vaccine targets white spot syndrome virus (WSSV), which leads to a 15% reduction in global shrimp production each year ViAqua plans to administer its RNA-based product via coated feed; the RNA molecules can inhibit gene expression, silencing disease-affected genes Shrimp lack an adaptive immune system, the type that “remembers” exposures to infectious agents, so it’s long been assumed that shrimp cannot be vaccinated; now it’s becoming clear that shrimp do have some defense against viruses, which is only beginning to be understood The risks of tinkering with shrimp genetics, and using mRNA shots in pigs, cattle and other animals intended for food, are completely unknown ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Shrimp are slated to become the latest food source exposed to messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines, courtesy of ViAqua Therapeutics, an Israeli-based biotechnology startup. The company has secured $8.25 million in funding from venture capitalists for its oral RNA-based shrimp vaccine, which is intended to target white spot syndrome virus (WSSV). With plans to administer its RNA-based product via coated feed, ViAqua suggests the RNA molecules can inhibit gene expression, silencing disease-affected genes with every meal.1 WSSV is a devastating condition in shrimp, leading to a 15% reduction in global shrimp production each year — an annual loss of about $3 billion.2 ViAqua says challenge tests show its RNA-based formulation improved shrimp survival against WSSV, but at what cost? The use of mRNA in the food supply is controversial for good reason — no one knows what the long-term consequences will be. RNA Vaccines Coming for Shrimp ViAqua is using RNA interference (RNAi) particles, provided as a feed supplement, to manipulate gene expression in shrimp, one of the most widely consumed forms of seafood worldwide. In a 2022 proof of concept study that used a polyanhydride nanoparticle delivery platform to deliver RNA to shrimp orally, it’s stated:3 "RNA interference (RNAi) in invertebrates is an antiviral cellular mechanism by which a trigger, such as double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) or small interfering RNA (siRNA) starts sequence-specific degradation of target mRNA, thereby preventing viral gene expression. … In aquaculture systems, the concept of RNAi-based vaccines has been championed for several reasons: (a) RNAi works as an antiviral immune response in shrimp; (b) it is pathogen-specific; and (c) it generates a long-term protective immune response." The study found that the "nanovaccine" was about 80% effective in protecting against WSSV in shrimp, when administered via reverse gavage to "mimic an oral route."4 ViAqua has brought the potential for oral delivery to the next level, with plans to begin producing its RNAi capsule products in India in 2024.5 Shai Ufaz, ViAqua’s chief executive officer, stated:6 "Oral delivery is the holy grail of aquaculture health development due to both the impossibility of vaccinating individual shrimp and its ability to substantially bring down the operational costs of disease management while improving outcomes … We are excited to bring this technology to market to address the need for affordable disease solutions in aquaculture." Can Shrimp Be Vaccinated? Shrimp lack an adaptive immune system, the type that "remembers" exposures to infectious agents so it can mount a better response the next time it comes around. Because of this, it’s long been assumed that shrimp cannot be vaccinated. According to the Global Seafood Alliance:7 "Scientific literature on shrimp has often adopted terms and approaches from mammalian immunology, but not always in a correct way. Such is the case in the use of the term "vaccination" in crustaceans. The principle of vaccination is based on two key elements of the immune system: specificity and memory. These two properties are not recognized in the immune systems of shrimp and other invertebrates." However, while shrimp don’t have adaptive immunity in the traditional sense, it’s becoming clear that they do have some defense against viruses, which is only beginning to be understood. In 2008, researchers with Australia’s University of Queensland explained, "There is mounting evidence for specific immune memory in crustaceans, including shrimp," adding:8 "It has been widely assumed that no such adaptive systems exist in invertebrates, thus vaccines have not been routinely developed and used in shrimp aquaculture. Invertebrates were considered to rely solely on an innate immune system characterized by generalized immune responses to conserved molecular structures of invading pathogens such as bacteria and fungi. Some of these pathways are relatively well understood, involving an array of pattern recognition receptors interacting with serine proteases to initiate encapsulation, phagocytosis and an antimicrobial cascade based on the phenoloxidase enzyme system. However, what is becoming more apparent is that the diversity and sophistication of innate responses in invertebrates is far greater than previously assumed. The invertebrate immune response to viruses is particularly poorly understood." ViAqua’s RNAi product claims to "enhance resistance to viral infections" in shrimp,9 and they have plans to develop additional mRNA vaccines for fish and other biotechnology products targeting additional shrimp viruses and other pathogens.10 But shrimp pathogens of one kind or another are virtually guaranteed to persist in the intensive aquaculture farms where many shrimp are raised. Further, the risks of tinkering with shrimp genetics are completely unknown. mRNA Shots Already Used in Pork The media has been pretty quiet about the up-and-coming genetic manipulation of shrimp. This seems to be par for the course. Few are aware that, since 2018, pork producers have been using customizable mRNA-based "vaccines" on their herds — as it largely slipped by under the radar.11 It wasn’t until attorney Tom Renz began promoting new legislation in Missouri (House Bill 1169,12 which he helped write) that would require labeling of mRNA products that it began to receive attention.13 In an April 1, 2023, tweet, Renz stated:14 "BREAKING NEWS: the lobbyists for the cattleman and pork associations in several states have CONFIRMED they WILL be using mRNA vaccines in pigs and cows THIS MONTH. WE MUST SUPPORT MISSOURI HB1169. It is LITERALLY the ONLY chance we have to prevent this … NO ONE knows the impacts of doing this but we are all potentially facing the risk of being a #DiedSuddenly if we don't stop this." Even though the bill asks only for transparency — not a ban of the mRNA-based shots — industry pushback has been enormous. They don’t want you to know that they’re using mRNA and similar products, because then they'd have to admit that the resulting foods may have gene-altering effects. And it’s not just pork, either. Cattle Groups Urge Caution Over mRNA The first RNA-based livestock vaccine, a swine influenza (H3N2) RNA shot developed by Harrisvaccines was licensed in 2012.15 The company followed up with an avian influenza mRNA shot in 2015.16 Concerns that mRNA injections could end up "in the global protein supply chain" also prompted warnings from cattle producers and calls for mandatory country of origin labeling (MCOOL) so consumers can choose meat from countries that don’t allow mRNA shots in meat animals.17 In an April 2023 news release, Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA), a nonprofit that represents interests of independent U.S. cattle producers, shared concerns about the use of mRNA shots in cattle and other meat animals. Max Thornsberry, DVM, R-CALF’s animal health committee chair, met with medial doctors and a molecular biologist before briefing the R-CALF USA board:18 "Thornsberry reported that some researchers have found that mRNA and its coded virus is likely passed from an injected human to a noninjected human, and to humans who have consumed dairy products or meat from an mRNA-injected animal. He said that because the research on mRNA is still in its infancy, no one really knows the full impact it has on either humans or animals, particularly its long-term impact. He said this itself warrants more extensive mRNA research focused on safety, heightened public vigilance, and greater transparency." In a commentary, R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard also urged caution regarding mRNA injections, stating:19 "It’s not a vaccine as we typically understand vaccines. So, for the rest of this discussion, I’ll refer to it as an injection. It’s an injection of a laboratory-produced substance into humans or livestock that is coded with a particular virus, such as COVID-19, that produces an immune response against the particular virus. And what does mRNA do? Well, it hijacks living cells, tricking them into producing some level of immunity against human viruses like COVID-19 and livestock viruses such as foot-and-mouth disease or lumpy skin disease. It does this by rewriting the instructions from the body’s DNA. And what are the potential risks to humans and livestock? The truthful answer is we don’t yet know the long-term effects of mRNA injections in either humans or livestock. … There is great concern that living cells excrete the mRNA over time and the mRNA can then be transferred to animals and humans that have never received the mRNA injection. It is believed, for example, that humans can contact mRNA by eating meat from livestock that have received the injection. The reason mRNA is an issue today is that pharmaceutical firms have found that it takes very little of it to hijack a cell, and it can be produced cheaper than typical virus vaccines." Is it possible that mRNA or RNAi nanoparticles could persist in the meat and shrimp you’re eating? Penny Riggs, associate research professor of functional genetics at Texas A&M, stated, "The estimate is that half of the mRNA from a vaccine is gone in about 20 hours, and completely destroyed within a few days."20 However, Thornsberry cited21 one study, published in Biomedicines, that found mRNA from injections can be detected in blood 15 days post-shot.22 The proof-of-concept study for the shrimp RNA nanovaccine also found the particles persisted long after administration: "The nanoparticles localized to tissue target replication sites for WSSV and persisted through 28 days post-administration."23 Again, the consequences of consuming these nanoparticles remains to be seen. Antibiotic Resistance Widespread in Shrimp Farm-raised seafood is among the most contaminated foods you can eat, shrimp included. Antibiotics are commonly used on farmed shrimp in an attempt to slow down pathogens.24 Not surprisingly, shrimp is often contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria as a result. One investigation by CBC News Marketplace found 17% — nine of the 51 packages of shrimp imported from Vietnam, Thailand, China, India and Ecuador — were contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria.25 Among them, all but one showed resistance to multiple antibiotics. Investigators purchased imported shrimp labeled "organic" as well as some with the "Best Aquaculture Practices" certification, which maintains that farmers only use antibiotics minimally. So, while shrimp can be a healthy addition to your diet, it’s important to avoid farm-raised shrimp, which is the type served in most restaurants and the variety that’s slated to receive a gene-altering nanoparticle vaccine in its feed. When it comes to purchasing high-quality shrimp, look for those that are either wild caught or locally produced.