Vaccine Crimes

[Raven]

this just out today - crimes against humanity prep: https://odysee.com/@Corona-Investiga...ession-86-en:0 (mind blowing)
Dr Mike Yeadon session 86 The Fog is Lifting
IMPORTANT!

[Pam]

Posted by Raven (here)
this just out today - crimes against humanity prep: https://odysee.com/@Corona-Investiga...ession-86-en:0 (mind blowing)
Dr Mike Yeadon session 86 The Fog is Lifting
IMPORTANT!

Thanks Raven. This is essential to watch. Because it is very long and if you understand the history of Dr. Yeadon you may wish to start at 52 minutes. This is where Yeadon and his group have graphed out the lots and it is jaw dropping. It gives you a very clear visual and compares it to the damage caused by the flu vaccines.. highly recommend. He states he is worried it is "calibration of a killing weapon".

[Gwin Ru]

AJ DePriest Uncovers The Enormous Covid Bribes To All Education And Hospitals From The US Government 21:40

• Watch

First published at 06:50 UTC on January 8th, 2022.

EarthNewspaper.com
All The Honest News Fit To Publish

Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/WVlMdnQg2Yzw

[mountain_jim]

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/sta...016202755?s=20

[Gwin Ru]

...

... regarding the results of the covid bribes, here is what happened to Cirsten W following Robert David Steel in hospitals' hecatombs (first ~10 minutes):


Supreme Court justices spreading lies and disinformation. The sting operation continues. 1:25:32

michaelj5326
Published January 7, 2022

Rumble — Life enhancing natural product line by cutting edge doctor: Root Wellness: https://therootbrands.com/jaco

Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/vpjgvh

[Matthew]

I've come to understand the number of cases is related to the number of tests done. Does anyone know or thought about this too?: the cases rate should be per 100,000 tests done or something like that/ Instead the more tests done the more positive test results (cases) but we don't see the number of tests done with a false result, just the total positive cases. Or am I missing something. I've got a feeling I might be missing something or got this wrong. Can anyone help confirm or correct?

[mountain_jim]

Justice Sotomayor, who participated in yesterday’s SCOTUS arguments remotely from her chambers, seen last night at Le Diplomate with Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Schumer and Sens. Klobuchar and Durban, per Politico.

Edit - not confirmed?

A picture of a fat lady with her back to the camera? I ain’t a fan, but can we find actual proof it’s her before we go off half cocked?

[mountain_jim]

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/m...s-signs-waning

Moderna CEO Scrambles To Sell More Boosters As Omicron Wave Shows Signs Of Waning

BY TYLER DURDEN
SATURDAY, JAN 08, 2022 - 11:00 AM

While the rest of the world rejoices at the possibility that the omicron wave might actually bring about the end of the pandemic (while also being bullish for stocks, as we explored earlier in a post about some recent findings out of South Africa), vaccine makers are already strategizing about how they will convince the world to keep buying boosters when the imminent threat posed by COVID has receded.

Speaking at a conference hosted by - who else? - Goldman Sachs, Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel said another round of vaccine boosters will probably be needed this fall, even if immunity to the rapidly spreading omicron does become widespread, like the South African scientists have warned.

Bancel added that even if omicron finally causes COVID to become endemic, there will still be a need for people to get their shots, since it's not clear how long the current wave of immunity will hold. And there's always uncertainty, since nobody can say for sure what future iterations of SARS-CoV-2 will be like.

"Assuming omicron is an acceleration to the endemic phase, I still believe we're going to need boosters in the fall of ‘22 and forward," Bancel said during his presentation.

But no matter what happens, boosters given this month or in the last quarter of 2021 will probably hold until spring begins in the Northern Hemisphere.

Moderna, which directly benefits from repeat inoculations, said during its Q3 earnings results that commercial booster market sales could be up to $2 billion in the United States in 2022.

As some countries (mostly US and Israel) deliver on plans to add more boosters, Moderna and its vaccine-producing rivals are scrambling to get as many governments as possible signed up for more shipments of their vaccines (remember, a booster is just half a dose of the vaccine). If the urgency surrounding COVID fades, then that could threaten their bottom line. And while WHO Chief Dr. Tedros has warned that countries can't "boost their way out" of the pandemic, Moderna's success is completely dependent on them selling more vaccines and boosters. And this isn't just true of Moderna, but of its competitors as well.

Moderna and competitors J&J, Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE have an interest in nudging policymakers toward regular Covid shots. Countries around the world have rushed forward with booster drives in an attempt to slow omicron’s spread, even as it remains unclear how long the boosters will protect against infection. Israel has started offering a fourth dose of the vaccine to people aged 60 and over as the country grapples with record numbers of new cases.

Bancel also told Thursday’s conference that he also believes elderly citizens and those with underlying health conditions may need to get a booster shot every year, adding that Moderna is working on an omicron-specific jab, which the company has promised to have ready by springtime in the northern hemisphere.

Early data out of the UK last month purported to show that the protection afforded by booster shots waned far more quickly than scientists had anticipated.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Early data out of the UK last month purported to show that the protection afforded by booster shots waned far more quickly than scientists had anticipated.

I had to comment on this. This is exactly the problem.
Scientists anticipating a result? Is that science?
Shouldn't they have conducted experiments to see if it was a logical assumption to expect a certain outcome?
These scientists just assume? And then are surprised that they were wrong?
Do they really think themselves that superior? That they are above the tried and true scientific method? That just their guesses are sufficient to risk the public's health on? And make those assumptions mandatory for every living human being?
How is it that they have forgotten the most basic and most important health edict: DO NO HARM!?

[DaveToo]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)

Early data out of the UK last month purported to show that the protection afforded by booster shots waned far more quickly than scientists had anticipated.

I had to comment on this. This is exactly the problem.
Scientists anticipating a result? Is that science?
Shouldn't they have conducted experiments to see if it was a logical assumption to expect a certain outcome?
These scientists just assume? And then are surprised that they were wrong?
Do they really think themselves that superior? That they are above the tried and true scientific method? That just their guesses are sufficient to risk the public's health on? And make those assumptions mandatory for every living human being?
How is it that they have forgotten the most basic and most important health edict: DO NO HARM!?

I know the sentiment you are trying to convey.

But we are really just playing off of one word.

Either the reporter used the word (anticipated) or the scientists did.
Whichever it was, perhaps it was simply a poor choice of word?

Swap "anticipated" with "hoped for" and it's not nearly as offensive.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Posted by DaveToo (here)

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)

Early data out of the UK last month purported to show that the protection afforded by booster shots waned far more quickly than scientists had anticipated.

I had to comment on this. This is exactly the problem.
Scientists anticipating a result? Is that science?
Shouldn't they have conducted experiments to see if it was a logical assumption to expect a certain outcome?
These scientists just assume? And then are surprised that they were wrong?
Do they really think themselves that superior? That they are above the tried and true scientific method? That just their guesses are sufficient to risk the public's health on? And make those assumptions mandatory for every living human being?
How is it that they have forgotten the most basic and most important health edict: DO NO HARM!?

I know the sentiment you are trying to convey.

But we are really just playing off of one word.

Either the reporter used the word (anticipated) or the scientists did.
Whichever it was, perhaps it was simply a poor choice of word?

Swap "anticipated" with "hoped for" and it's not nearly as offensive.

That's sarcasm even I can see through. Thanks Dave
Yes, of course. It is not nearly as offensive to mandate a 'hoped for' or 'anticipated' outcome for the public.

[DaveToo]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)

Posted by DaveToo (here)

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)

Early data out of the UK last month purported to show that the protection afforded by booster shots waned far more quickly than scientists had anticipated.

I had to comment on this. This is exactly the problem.
Scientists anticipating a result? Is that science?
Shouldn't they have conducted experiments to see if it was a logical assumption to expect a certain outcome?
These scientists just assume? And then are surprised that they were wrong?
Do they really think themselves that superior? That they are above the tried and true scientific method? That just their guesses are sufficient to risk the public's health on? And make those assumptions mandatory for every living human being?
How is it that they have forgotten the most basic and most important health edict: DO NO HARM!?

I know the sentiment you are trying to convey.

But we are really just playing off of one word.

Either the reporter used the word (anticipated) or the scientists did.
Whichever it was, perhaps it was simply a poor choice of word?

Swap "anticipated" with "hoped for" and it's not nearly as offensive.

That's sarcasm even I can see through. Thanks Dave
Yes, of course. It is not nearly as offensive to mandate a 'hoped for' or 'anticipated' outcome for the public.

Well the quote we are discussing (and specific word) is about vaccine effectiveness, not about mandates.
I wasn't being sarcastic.

[Bill Ryan]

"Everyone Who Died With Covid Should Be Considered Murdered" — Nurse Morgan Wallace


Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/4mPzCpG4pH3p

[Ernie Nemeth]

So I ask anyone who believes a medical board should 'anticipate', 'hope for', 'wish for', 'pray for', or any other way other than the medically accepted scientific approach, and on that basis make a whimsical, fantastical decision to mandate that procedure without informed consent is not criminal?

Here's one for you...
Show me the placebo, double blind study that's been going on since the vaccine became available and before. It's been two years, there should be two years of data to rely on.
Did the vaccinated group fare better than placebo group?
Did the vaccinated exhibit no additional signs of adverse reactions than the placebo group?
How many vaccinated died compared to how many in the placebo group from covid?


But we cannot do that because the placebo group was compromised by the rental-trial company, who of course has every incentive to submit a favourable report to the drug manufacturers they contract with.
They unblinded the study and offered the vax to the placebo group on 'ethical' grounds.
The entire placebo group did just that - took the vax.

So, in fact, after two years of jabbing people with an experimental vax, there is no testing being done of any merit to prove its usefulness! And that means the public has no information with which to make an informed decision. But that's okay because the 'authorities', the same ones who refuse to do a proper trail of this poison, have deemed it a wish, an anticipation, a hope, that the vax will do the job...

[DaveToo]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
So I ask anyone who believes a medical board should 'anticipate', 'hope for', 'wish for', 'pray for', or any other way other than the medically accepted scientific approach, and on that basis make a whimsical, fantastical decision to mandate that procedure without informed consent is not criminal?

Here's one for you...
Show me the placebo, double blind study that's been going on since the vaccine became available and before. It's been two years, there should be two years of data to rely on.
Did the vaccinated group fare better than placebo group?
Did the vaccinated exhibit no additional signs of adverse reactions than the placebo group?
How many vaccinated died compared to how many in the placebo group from covid?


But we cannot do that because the placebo group was compromised by the rental-trial company, who of course has every incentive to submit a favourable report to the drug manufacturers they contract with.
They unblinded the study and offered the vax to the placebo group on 'ethical' grounds.
The entire placebo group did just that - took the vax.

So, in fact, after two years of jabbing people with an experimental vax, there is no testing being done of any merit to prove its usefulness! And that means the public has no information with which to make an informed decision. But that's okay because the 'authorities', the same ones who refuse to do a proper trail of this poison, have deemed it a wish, an anticipation, a hope, that the vax will do the job...

It's worse than "compromised".
They stopped the placebo trial prematurely.

[mojo]

This report is well done but amazingly I think you all know already how bad it is...


Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/vpg2az

[mojo]

more from the same reporter... time for the Nuremburg trials to begin again.

Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/vp3433

[mountain_jim]

These are from an impressive part 2 article:

https://www.peakprosperity.com/2021-...ed-healthcare/

2021 Year in Review: The Rise of Centralized Healthcare
Part 2
by David Collum

Every year, Peak Prosperity friend David Collum writes a detailed “Year in Review” synopsis. We believe this may be one of the most complete, ferocious and funny takedowns of the Centralized Healthcare System and Vaccine Industrial Complex on the internet. It should not surprise anyone to see Dave Collum’s 2021 Year in Review “The Rise of Centralized Healthcare” entered into the Congressional Record or used as evidence in new trials at The Hague when the world’s medical, political, corporate and social media leaders are forced to answer for their crimes. While each part stands on its own, and doesn’t need to be read in order, click here to read Part 1. This is Part 2.

[DaveToo]

Posted by Matthew (here)
I've come to understand the number of cases is related to the number of tests done. Does anyone know or thought about this too?: the cases rate should be per 100,000 tests done or something like that/ Instead the more tests done the more positive test results (cases) but we don't see the number of tests done with a false result, just the total positive cases. Or am I missing something. I've got a feeling I might be missing something or got this wrong. Can anyone help confirm or correct?

I've come to understand the number of cases is related to the number of tests done

Not really.

I used to think along those lines too. The past couple of days I decided to do a bit of a deep dive into this with data that is readily available.

First of all to clarify some things you said.

There is not always a direct relation between the number of cases and the number of tests.
Sometimes the more tests you do at a location the number of cases will increase, but sometimes people are just getting tested "to be safe", they have no symptoms. So these people will usually test negative.

Or to put it another way, one day there may be 10 cases in 100 tests at a center, another day
there may be 12 cases in 300 tests at a center etc. etc.

We do know the number of tests with negative results.

We have the following data available to us for each country:

Number of tests/day.
Number of cases/day.

From those two figures we quickly get the number of negative tests/day (Tests - Cases = Negative tests).

I put together a bunch of charts for various countries and also a table of data that reveals something quite interesting.

Canada's tests/case ratio is 21.4
This means for each positive case detected, 21.4 tests are conducted.

United States' tests/case ratio is 12.1
This means for each positive case detected, 12.1 tests are conducted.

So what does this tell us? It depends on how you want to interpret it.
You could say the U.S. is more efficient with its testing. They use fewer tests to find each 'Covid case'.

But every region, city, country is different. Some countries test mainly sick people. Other countries tests any warm body that shows up to be tested.
For those countries that test mainly sick people you would expect a lower tests/case ratio.

Have a look at this table for some numbers you might be surprised seeing.

[Matthew]

Posted by DaveToo (here)

Posted by Matthew (here)
I've come to understand the number of cases is related to the number of tests done. Does anyone know or thought about this too?: the cases rate should be per 100,000 tests done or something like that/ Instead the more tests done the more positive test results (cases) but we don't see the number of tests done with a false result, just the total positive cases. Or am I missing something. I've got a feeling I might be missing something or got this wrong. Can anyone help confirm or correct?

I've come to understand the number of cases is related to the number of tests done

Not really.

I used to think along those lines too. The past couple of days I decided to do a bit of a deep dive into this with data that is readily available.

First of all to clarify some things you said.

There is not always a direct relation between the number of cases and the number of tests.
Sometimes the more tests you do at a location the number of cases will increase, but sometimes people are just getting tested "to be safe", they have no symptoms. So these people will usually test negative.

Or to put it another way, one day there may be 10 cases in 100 tests at a center, another day
there may be 12 cases in 300 tests at a center etc. etc.

We do know the number of tests with negative results.

We have the following data available to us for each country:

Number of tests/day.
Number of cases/day.

From those two figures we quickly get the number of negative tests/day (Tests - Cases = Negative tests).

I put together a bunch of charts for various countries and also a table of data that reveals something quite interesting.

Canada's tests/case ratio is 21.4
This means for each positive case detected, 21.4 tests are conducted.

United States' tests/case ratio is 12.1
This means for each positive case detected, 12.1 tests are conducted.

So what does this tell us? It depends on how you want to interpret it.
You could say the U.S. is more efficient with its testing. They use fewer tests to find each 'Covid case'.

But every region, city, country is different. Some countries test mainly sick people. Other countries tests any warm body that shows up to be tested.
For those countries that test mainly sick people you would expect a lower tests/case ratio.

Have a look at this table for some numbers you might be surprised seeing.

Thanks for the well thought and detailed answer!