top of page

Search Results

3298 items found for ""

  • A new study estimates that 17 million people have been killed by covid injections so far, and the ri

    https://expose-news.com/2023/09/23/17-million-killed-by-covid-injections-so-far/ A new study estimates that 17 million people have been killed by covid injections so far, and the risk of death is highest in older age groups Last week a study that examined all-cause mortality in 17 Southern Hemisphere and equatorial nations was published by Correlation. It found that there is a definite causal link between many peaks in all-cause mortality and rapid covid injection rollouts. The study quantified the fatal toxicity risk per injection and estimated that the covid vaccines have killed 17 million people worldwide. This means that the covid injections have killed 1 in 470 people – in less than 3 years. Additionally, the study revealed that the risk of death is not equal across all age groups but increases with age. The fatal toxicity risk per injection is exceedingly large in the most elderly, the authors noted. Consequentially, governments should immediately end the policy of prioritising elderly people for covid-19 injections. Correlation is a Canadian not-for-profit corporation which has the aim of conducting independent research on topics that are of public interest. On 17 September, two of Correlation’s researchers, Denis G. Rancourt and Joseph Hickey, together with two other researchers, Marine Baudin and Jérémie Mercier, published their study ‘Covid-19 vaccine-associated mortality in the Southern Hemisphere’. On his Substack page, Rancourt has highlighted some parts of the study. You can read his highlights HERE. The graphs below for each of the 17 countries, taken from the study (Figure 2), show the all-cause mortality (blue line), the 1-year backward moving average of the all-cause mortality (red line) and the vaccines administered according to Our World in Data (orange line). The 11 March 2020 pandemic declaration date is shown by a vertical grey line in each panel. The researchers pointed out that in 9 of the 17 countries, there is no detectable excess mortality until the vaccines are rolled out (Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Paraguay, Philippines, Singapore, Suriname, Thailand, Uruguay). In the other 8 of the 17 countries, a new regime of higher mortality was initiated after 11 March 2020 and before any covid-19 vaccine administration (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, South Africa). In all 17 countries, vaccination is associated with a regime of high mortality, and there is no association in time between covid-19 vaccination and proportionate reduction in all-cause mortality. Dr. Mike Yeadon shared Correlation’s paper on his Telegram channel with the following comment: [Attached is] the latest paper by Denis Rancourt and colleagues. It really is devastating. While not a new idea of course – that these gene-based injections injure & kill was likely to some of us from the period before emergency use authorisation. This paper more accurately quantifies the burden of deaths directly caused by these jabs. To my knowledge, no one has rebutted any of his reports. Plenty of criticism, but no specifics. Robin Monotti + Dr Mike Yeadon + Cory Morningstar on Telegram, 19 September 2023 You can find all of Rancourt’s previous scientific reports on covid HERE. In previous studies relating to data from India, Australia, Israel, the USA and Canada, Rancourt calculated the vaccine-dose fatality rate (“vDFR”) across all ages as approximately 0.05%, or 1 death per 2,000 injections, with an extreme value of 1% for the special case of India. vDFR is the ratio of inferred vaccine-induced deaths to vaccine doses administered in a population, based on excess all-cause mortality evaluation on a given time period, compared to the number of vaccine doses administered in the same time period. Our work, using extensive data for Australia and Israel, has also shown that vDFR is exponential with age (doubling every 5 years of age), reaching approximately 1 % for 80+ year olds (Rancourt et al., 2023). Covid-19 vaccine-associated mortality in the Southern Hemisphere, Correlation, 17 September 2023 In this latest study, the researchers said that detailed mortality and vaccination data for Chile and Peru allowed resolution by age and by dose number. “In Chile and Peru, the vDFR increases exponentially with age (doubling approximately every 4 years of age), and is largest for the latest booster doses, reaching approximately 5% in the 90+ years age groups (1 death per 20 injections of dose 4).” The researchers calculated the overall vDFR across all ages for the 17 countries to be 0.12%. This implies approximately 17 million covid vaccine deaths worldwide from 13.5 billion injections up to 2 September 2023. Deaths by covid vaccine correspond to a mass iatrogenic event, or harm from healthcare, that killed 0.21% of the world’s population in less than 3 years, the authors wrote. 0.21% equates to 1 death per 470 living persons. All these deaths from a “vaccine” that did not measurably prevent any deaths, they added. The overall risk of death induced by injection with the covid-19 vaccines in actual populations, inferred from excess all-cause mortality and its synchronicity with rollouts, is globally pervasive and much larger than reported in clinical trials, adverse effect monitoring, and cause-of-death statistics from death certificates, by 3 orders of magnitude (1,000-fold greater). The large age dependence and large values of vDFR quantified in this study of 17 countries on 4 continents, using all the main covid-19 vaccine types and manufacturers, should induce governments to immediately end the baseless public health policy of prioritising elderly residents for injection with covid-19 vaccines, until valid risk-benefit analyses are made. Covid-19 vaccine-associated mortality in the Southern Hemisphere, Correlation, 17 September 2023

  • The Online Safety Bill – Welcome to the New World Order

    https://expose-news.com/2023/09/23/the-online-safety-bill-welcome-to-the-new-world-order/ The Online Safety Bill was approved by the House of Lords on the 19th of September but still needs royal assent which is official approval from the King before it can become law. The Bill is a piece of legislation that comes under the guise of being predominantly for the safety of children in an attempt to protect them from online grooming and abuse and also to limit the reach of terrorist propaganda. This, however, is a propaganda technique known as card-stacking. The government has presented something everyone can agree upon—child abuse is evil and children need protecting—in order to induce people, including our representatives in Parliament, to believe that the legislation is necessary. This is not the real objective of the bill, this is simply a tactic used to deter people from fighting against the bill which really has the primary focus of narrative control. The bill is essentially, a direct attack on social media platforms, or more specifically the content that can be seen and shared on them and will enable the government to blackmail social media companies to reduce their reach, de-platform, and criminalise views that disagree with the government narrative. If this bill receives royal assent from King Charles, which of course it is likely to, this is the end of democracy, we are now in a dictatorship courtesy of the New World Order. OfCom The OSB came from the government’s Online Harms White Paper which stated that an independent regulator would be appointed. Britain’s broadcasting regulator Ofcom was subsequently appointed as the Online Safety Regulator, but Ofcom is in no way independent from the government, nor from a plethora of commercial interests. Ofcom is “directly accountable” to the UK Parliament, and funded by many of the broadcasters it currently regulates. Additionally, it is “sponsored” by the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), among other government agencies and departments. Ofcom board’s declared register of interests shows that of the 40 board members in all (spread between Ofcom’s executive, content, and advisory boards), eleven have financial ties to the BBC and 26 are either currently, or were formerly, in government roles.” Other interests represented by Ofcom board members include Google, GlaxoSmithKline (via the Wellcome Trust), Akamai (the global cybersecurity and content hosting giant), numerous media consultancies, and other commercial enterprises that stand to profit from Ofcom “regulations”. The only people Ofcom appears to be independent from are the public and despite alleging that the bill will impose a duty on the tech giants to operate safely, it is actually about taking down individual pieces of content posted by ordinary users. The Bill The bill aims to set tougher standards for social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok and the government has no doubt it will soon become law. Although Technology Secretary Michelle Donelan said on Tuesday that the bill was a “game-changing” piece of legislation and that “this government is taking an enormous step forward in our mission to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online.” This is simply untrue. Paedophiles The OSB will not assist in this effort to protect children from paedophiles, according to Iain Davis at UKColumn, who argue that “paedophiles already have been and are being prosecuted for online abuses in increasing numbers. Law enforcement already has the legal power and technological capability to detect and arrest online paedophiles. Resource shortages are the problem, and the approaching Act does not address them.” The UK Government admits that online child sexual abuse and exploitation (CSEA) overwhelmingly occurs on the dark web, yet they are placing the responsibility on the media giants on the surface web which is unhidden to police everyone’s social media activity. A more sensible way to start tackling the problem would be for it to insist that Facebook—by far the biggest platform—remove its dark website as long as it remains online, child predators will continue to access Facebook via the dark web route. This makes catching them much harder for law enforcement (source) Again, the OSB offers nothing on this front to address something that genuinely is an unacceptable risk. Terrorism Another assertion is that the OSB is designed to tackle terrorist propaganda and so-called online radicalisation, but “to date, the British state has shown little interest in removing real terrorist propaganda, which has been widely circulated online for nearly two decades.” says UKColumn, and it is “YouTube (owned by Google) who is among the many platforms that openly host terrorist-related material.” Ofcom is currently the regulator for the video-sharing platforms (VSPs) where terrorist-related material is openly hosted. The OSB is to receive additional counter-terrorism powers, but, since it hasn’t shown any inclination to use those it already possesses why would we believe they will use some new ones? It is just not credible, the Government and its agencies have long had both the authority and the ability to remove online terrorist incitement, but haven’t. (source) Clearly, this is just another sales technique to promote the legislation. The Issues with The OSB The bill has hidden references to claimed “disinformation” and “misinformation” inside the broader notion of “content that is harmful to adults.” Nonetheless, the primary focus of the Bill is on social media platforms and online services with significant user bases to censor the views that disagree with their own. Once the OSB has been accepted as law, the Secretary of State or Ofcom can, at their discretion, label the types of content they don’t like as “content that is harmful to adults.” Category 1 providers will then have a duty to establish systems to take down such content. (source) This in itself will also drive other issues, such as: Lack of Privacy: There is obviously the likelihood that there will need to be increased monitoring and reporting for online platforms, which could raise concerns about user privacy. Additionally the monitoring of content and reporting of “illegal activities” could lead to more extensive data collection, potentially compromising privacy rights. Data protection – The bill may require online platforms to share data with law enforcement agencies to combat illegal activities. While this is aimed at improving online safety, it raises concerns about how data is handled, stored, and protected, potentially impacting individuals’ data protection rights. Impact on Marginalized Communities: There is a risk that overzealous content removal or censorship could disproportionately affect marginalized communities, including minority groups. This could hinder their ability to express themselves online and engage in meaningful discussions. This would include those of us who do not agree with government policies and agendas. Freedom of Expression Freedom of Expression: One of the primary concerns related to the bill is its potential impact on freedom of expression. The bill requires online platforms to remove or limit access to illegal and harmful content, which can include what the government may deem “hate speech, terrorist content,” and more. The Online Safety Bill, therefore is similar to many pieces of legislation that aim to regulate online content and is trampling all over our human rights by impacting freedom of expression. So while the bill claims to protect individuals from harmful content, there are particular concerns about the potential overreach and censorship which leaves the people with just one point of view, that of the tyrannical government. Failure to comply could limit the social media giants’ ability to reach and engage with their audience or even de-platform them altogether. Several sections of the bill have been subject to scrutiny and debate regarding their potential impact on freedom of expression. Some of these sections include: 1. Duty of Care: The bill imposes a duty of care on online platforms to protect users from illegal and harmful content. This could potentially lead to over-censorship if platforms err on the side of caution and remove content that may be controversial but not illegal. Let’s face it, everything is controversial to someone, somewhere these days. 2. Regulatory Powers: The bill grants regulatory powers to the Online Safety Regulator, which can set rules and standards for content removal, these may be overly broad or vague. 3. User Reporting: Platforms are required to have mechanisms for users to report harmful content and while this is supposed to make the users feel empowered, as we have seen with the Rona times, we now have witnessed those who will feel they have a moral duty to report content that disagrees with them or the government, which will lead to the removal of content without a thorough assessment. 4. Blocking and Removal of Content: The bill allows the regulator to issue notices to block or remove content deemed harmful. again the criteria for assessing harm and the process for issuing notices is subjective and often biased. 5. Enforcement of Age Restrictions: Platforms are required to enforce age limits and age- checking measures, and while this is aimed at protecting children, it may also restrict access to content for adults. From analysis of the Online Safety Bill What is most concerning is platform owners will likely be over-cautious about what content is safe to stay on their site mainly because if they do not comply with the bill, the media regulator Ofcom will be able to issue fines of up to 18 million pounds ($22.3 million) or 10% of their annual global turnover. (Reuters) This can only result in over-censorship and huge limitations on freedom of expression. Health-Related Content We have seen the effects of health-related content that does not agree with the government’s “science” Experts, have very often seen their content banned, from social media, and often good scientists and doctors have been de-platformed. Misinformation The OSB will directly censor those of us who were against the COVID hoax and relentlessly share our truth concerning the plandemic and warnings of the needless risks associated with government interventions. Points that were raised in the House of Lords when debating the bill on Thursday 11 May 2023 would suggest that these are exactly the voices and views they want to censor. Baroness Merron for example made a few utterly ridiculous, biased points to support this idea. Here are two of them and an excerpt of her offerings to the Bill debate below. “We all remember the absolute horror of seeing false theories being spread quickly online, threatening to undermine the life-saving vaccine rollout.” “In 2020, an estimated 5,800 people globally were admitted to hospital because of false information online relating to Covid-19, with at least 800 people believed to have died because they followed this misinformation or disinformation.” This is Tyranny What hope do we have when our freedoms are in the hands of such docile people as this Baroness? We also have a government that has shown it cannot be trusted through the multitude of lies in the Covid era and we are now being lied to yet again with their claims that the bill is intended to tackle online CSEA. They have used our love and feelings of responsibility for all children in order to sell us this new bill, a bill that they felt the need to undemocratically sneak in under another guise knowing that many could not oppose it. They offered child protection but what they are really giving us is censorship a restriction on our freedom of speech that will impose on us like we have never known before. As Robert Kennedy Jr. says, “No Time in History When Censors Were the Good Guys“ What we are witnessing now is unjust, oppressive governmental power, – this is tyranny – brought to you by the New World Order. The speech by Jacob Rees Mogg before the treasonous ‘Online Safety Bill’ went through is an appropriate way to conclude. (source)

  • 5G Activated Zombie Apocalypse

    Military attorney says lipid nanoparticles contain pathogens that can be released by pulsed 5G signal

  • BRICS is part of the plan to reshape the world economy; it was launched decades ago by Goldman Sachs

    https://expose-news.com/2023/09/21/brics-is-part-of-the-plan-to-reshape-the-world-economy/ Featured image: Former Chief Economist at Goldman Sachs, Jim O’Neill, coined the acronym BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China) in 2001, and in 2010, South Africa was admitted into the group which made it BRICS (bottom left). Source: This Day On the Unchartered Territory Podcast, Dan Astin-Gregory and Sam X discussed globalisation, deglobalisation, centralisation, decentralisation and localisation. They began by discussing the global shift that appears to be on the horizon with the formation of BRICS. BRICS may be something that we have become aware of in recent years as it has gained momentum, but it was started by Goldman Sachs decades ago to “reshape the global economy.” Unchartered Territory Podcast: Warning! Big Moves Are Coming, 13 September 2023 (62 mins) In the video above Sam explained that the term “BRICS” was coined a couple of decades ago by Jim O’Neill who was the Chief Economist at Goldman Sachs. They talked about a move away from the dominance of America, Sam said, “They even painted in investment vehicles around this very name and the idea potential for BRICS currency … The theory being that [ ] what these inside bankers were looking at was that the empiristic nature of the American Empire was becoming too obvious.” To commemorate the 150th anniversary of Goldman Sachs’ founding in 1869, the company published a series of articles. One of the articles titled ‘With GS Research Report, “BRICs” Are Born’ stated: In 2001, Goldman Sachs’ Global Investment Research Division publishes the report, “Build Better Global Economic BRICs,” coining the acronym for the four countries that would reshape the world economy – Brazil, Russia, India and China. Other BRICs-oriented research would follow from Goldman Sachs in the ensuing years, including 2003’s paper, “Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050,” which posited that the BRICs countries could overtake the largest Western economies by the year 2039. By the middle of the decade, numerous BRICs-themed mutual funds, ETFs [exchange-traded funds] and indexes were created to track this distinct group of emerging economies. The first annual BRIC Summit took place in 2009 in Yekaterinburg, Russia, bringing together leaders of the BRIC countries to discuss policy issues and common challenges. The following year, the group voted to invite South Africa to join, cementing the acronym BRICS. In 2014, the BRICS Development Bank was established in an agreement signed during the sixth annual BRICS summit in Fortaleza, Brazil. Since renamed New Development Bank (NDB) and headquartered in Shanghai, the institution’s goal is to mobilise resources for infrastructure and sustainable development projects in BRICS and other emerging market and developing countries. By shining a research spotlight on a select group of emerging economies poised to become the next global growth powerhouses, Goldman Sachs helped both investors and companies frame their thinking and decisions based on a shifting global economic power dynamic. Beyond that, the “BRICs” concept triggered cooperation and collaboration among policymakers in these diverse countries on issues ranging from agriculture, trade, and environmental policies to national security and international finance. With GS Research Report, “BRICs” Are Born, Goldman Sachs Interestingly, O’Neill was quoted a few days ago as criticising the expansion drive of the BRICS nations. The same article noted that O’Neill coined the acronym MINT (Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Turkey) in 2013. When asked his thoughts on a common currency for the BRICS nations, O’Neill responded: “It is a ridiculous idea. You will need to have an independent central bank to achieve that. There is no way that India and China would ever agree to an independent central bank or even a joint central bank.” In a global system, the former Chief Economist at Goldman Sachs doesn’t think BRICS is going to have any global power: “If you want to make the global system truly representative, in my opinion, the G20 is close to being the most legitimate thing we have, because it already has 80 per cent of GDP half of the world’s population … I don’t think the BRICS group is likely going to have any global power. If you really want to truly solve global issues, you need to have the important countries and the most important emerging countries with you,” he said. Read more: O’Neill: BRICS’ Countries Expanding Not Logical, Disappointing, This Day, 20 September 2023 A lot of empires, such as the British Empire or the American Empire, have the same power brokers standing over them, Sam said. “Rome never falls. It just moves location and goes underground.” He works on the theory that the power brokers are the three City States: the City of London, the Vatican and Washington D.C. “So, I think potentially, what we’re looking at [with BRICS] is actually the passage of moving. And it’s looking like an organic shift and it’s looking like a break of all structures – but actually, my thesis is, the deglobalisation and this shift to other countries are part of the agenda.” “A lot of people are championing what’s happening in these [BRICS] countries in terms of the media reports, alternative media, but that’s not what I’m hearing from aware people on the ground there.” Further reading: * Three Corporations run the world: City of London, Washington DC and Vatican City, Sihala Net, 31 May 2014 * The Many Sovereign City-States: Vatican City, City of London & Westminster, DC, UN (New York City), CERN, Monaco, Geneva, Singapore and the World, Governmental Services Corporation Watch, 30 June 2017 * Building an Empire – The City of London, The Exposé, 8 September 2021

  • Yes supporter speaks out after ‘spitting’ video

    https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/yes-supporter-spits-at-man-in-ugly-scenes/news-story/9d9be0029ac6609f8554cb445d19df0a Yes23 campaigner Proffessor Denise 'Feral' Ferris has denied spitting on a No Voter despite clear video evidence going viral online. “Out of the blue, Andrew Thaler moved toward me filming me with his iPhone extended,” she said. “I felt intimidated at first. I asked him to stop, he was holding the camera out, using the camera like a weapon pointed at me. I was more than terrified, he was literally in my face, I had a visceral response, a panic attack, fight or flight. I did not spit on him. I wanted to block his camera without engaging in physical contact." NSW Police confirmed officers were called to Centennial Park in Cooma, about 110km south of Canberra, on Sunday but have not yet charged Proffessor Ferris with assault. A Yes23 campaign spokesman said that rhe volunteer in question has been stood down. As of Thursday afternoon Prof Ferris’ researcher profile page with the ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences had been deleted suggesting the Australian National University had dismissed Proffessor Ferris after significant public outrage over her spitting. The ANU describeS her areas of expertise as “lens based practice”, “culture, gender, sexuality” and “art criticism”. An ANU spokesman said in a statement on Thursday morning, “This video has just been brought to the university’s attention. We will investigate and take appropriate action as required. Opinion polls suggest the proposal is on track for defeat as support continues to slide.

  • Ukraine To Become 'Big Israel'? | Max Blumenthal

    The Grayzone's ((((((Max Blumenthal)))))) addresses the Ron Paul Institute's 2023 Washington DC conference on the disturbing plans in Kiev and Washington to convert Ukraine into a "Big Israel," and what this means for the region and the future of US politics.

bottom of page