Vaccine Crimes

[onawah]

Personally, I have no faith in vaccines which can never adequately substitute for the practice of real prevention and the use of natural remedies.
Humanity will have to learn to live in harmony with Nature in order to thrive.
But it's at least encouraging that more people are paying attention to the problems with vaccines.

Posted by Kryztian (here)
]
Pretty sure that this book will be presented at "anti-vax" although the last sentence says it all: "Critical evaluation can only make the technology safer and more effective."
I never realized that "vaccines" has the same root as "vacca" (Latin) or "vaca" (Spanish), the word "cow". They are indeed the golden calf for those at the intersection of capitalism and authoritarianism.

[mountain_jim]

copying here

Posted by mountain_jim (here)
https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1965097804365234399

Tucker Carlson
@TuckerCarlson

Post-Nazi medicine is based on informed consent, so naturally Dr. Kirk Moore allowed his patients to decide whether or not they wanted the Covid shot. For this, federal prosecutors tried to put him in prison for life.

(0:00) Reacting to Donald Trump’s Message to the Pharmaceutical Companies
(4:55) The Military’s Involvement in America’s Healthcare
(7:28) Why Do Vaccine Developers Have Legal Immunity?
(10:40) How Dr. Kirk Moore Spotted the Covid Scam So Quickly
(21:17) The Censorship Campaign to Silence Good Doctors
(28:31) Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci, and the Suspicious Push for Vaccines
(39:24) Why Dr. Kirk Moore Told His Patients Not to Take the Covid Vaccine
(47:49) Why Dr. Kirk Moore Decided to Administer Fake Vaccines
(53:38) The Horrifying Vaccine Schedule for Newborns
(57:27) Why Haven’t There Been Any Long-Term Studies of Vaccines?
(1:02:57) The Feds Storming Dr. Kirk Moore’s Office
(1:09:32) The Ridiculous Indictments
(1:17:32) The Moment Dr. Kirk Moore Found Out He Might Go to Jail for Life
(1:20:35) The FBI Sting Operation on Dr. Kirk Moore That Went Totally Wrong
(1:23:35) How Much Money Did Dr. Kirk Moore Lose to This Legal Battle?
(1:25:42) Who Were the Prosecutors of Dr. Kirk Moore?
(1:29:27) Has Dr. Kirk Moore Ever Been Targeted by Law Enforcement Before?
(1:31:28) Dr. Kirk Moore’s Experience in Jail
(1:39:41) Dr. Kirk Moore’s Attempt to Get the Case Dismissed
(1:49:38) How Jails Profit by Imprisoning You
(1:54:48) Dr. Kirk Moore’s Corrupt Trial
(2:10:54) How Marjorie Taylor Greene Worked to Get Dr. Kirk Moore’s Case Dismissed
(2:14:17) Is It Possible to Fix the Corruption of the Pharmaceutical Industry?

[Kryztian]

Posted by onawah (here)
Personally, I have no faith in vaccines which can never adequately substitute for the practice of real prevention and the use of natural remedies.
Humanity will have to learn to live in harmony with Nature in order to thrive.
But it's at least encouraging that more people are paying attention to the problems with vaccines.

Posted by Kryztian (here)
]
Pretty sure that this book will be presented at "anti-vax" although the last sentence says it all: "Critical evaluation can only make the technology safer and more effective."
I never realized that "vaccines" has the same root as "vacca" (Latin) or "vaca" (Spanish), the word "cow". They are indeed the golden calf for those at the intersection of capitalism and authoritarianism.

Then, you could be labelled "anti-vaxxer", however, most people fighting for safer vaccines don't merit that title. The only vaccine I think I voluntarily took as an adult was for tetanus. If I was told I needed tetanus again (e.g., after I stepped on a rusty nail) I would get tetanus again. Any other vaccine, probably not, or I would at least research it first, so maybe I don't qualify for the "antivax" label. But if you want to curb the abuse of humanity by the vaccine industry, I think the "vaccine safety" argument is going to win over more people than the "anti-vax"argument.

If you are a prosecutor, go with the argument that is best going to convince the jury. You could make a very good case that that the twin tower could not have come down the way they did on 9/11 just from being hit by an airplane, but it would be a very long and convoluted presentation and the other side could poke holes in your argument and you could loose the attention of the jury. But it would be much, much easier to explain that Building 7 could not have come down the way it did and was clearly a planned demolition. In the same way, you will speak to more people if you talk about how the vaccine industry has produced many unsafe and ineffective products, than if you argue the "no vaccine" case.

[onawah]

I don't generally argue the case with anyone, but occasionally I do voice an opinion, not to convince anyone but just from a personal urge to speak out.
And I was speaking from a long term, not an immediate perspective.
I do understand the need for moderation when trying to convince the public which is still relatively uninformed, however.
And I pray for RFK Jr. who has to remember always to be careful of how much truth he reveals at one time.
I'm certainly grateful I don't have his job!!
It's tricky territory when arguing the case that the COVID vaccine was necessary at first, when actually it's been clear for a long time that there were better, safer remedies from the start, like Ivermectin and vitamin supplements.
Trump makes mistakes, and I hate to see RFK having to try and justify them.

Posted by Kryztian (here)

Posted by onawah (here)
Personally, I have no faith in vaccines which can never adequately substitute for the practice of real prevention and the use of natural remedies.
Humanity will have to learn to live in harmony with Nature in order to thrive.
But it's at least encouraging that more people are paying attention to the problems with vaccines.

Posted by Kryztian (here)
]
Pretty sure that this book will be presented at "anti-vax" although the last sentence says it all: "Critical evaluation can only make the technology safer and more effective."
I never realized that "vaccines" has the same root as "vacca" (Latin) or "vaca" (Spanish), the word "cow". They are indeed the golden calf for those at the intersection of capitalism and authoritarianism.

Then, you could be labelled "anti-vaxxer", however, most people fighting for safer vaccines don't merit that title. The only vaccine I think I voluntarily took as an adult was for tetanus. If I was told I needed tetanus again (e.g., after I stepped on a rusty nail) I would get tetanus again. Any other vaccine, probably not, or I would at least research it first, so maybe I don't qualify for the "antivax" label. But if you want to curb the abuse of humanity by the vaccine industry, I think the "vaccine safety" argument is going to win over more people than the "anti-vax"argument.

If you are a prosecutor, go with the argument that is best going to convince the jury. You could make a very good case that that the twin tower could not have come down the way they did on 9/11 just from being hit by an airplane, but it would be a very long and convoluted presentation and the other side could poke holes in your argument and you could loose the attention of the jury. But it would be much, much easier to explain that Building 7 could not have come down the way it did and was clearly a planned demolition. In the same way, you will speak to more people if you talk about how the vaccine industry has produced many unsafe and ineffective products, than if you argue the "no vaccine" case.

[onawah]

The Data Prove It: Fauci Misled Trump on COVID Vaccine Efficacy in 2020
TrialSite News
September 8, 2025
By Ron Brown, Ph.D.
(Podcast at the link. Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here. )



https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...tm_id=20250908

"Data from randomized controlled trials prove the COVID-19 vaccines failed to reach clinically significant efficacy against infection with SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, evidence suggests that in 2020, public health officials who failed to fully disclose the very low absolute efficacy of the vaccines misled President Donald Trump about the efficacy of the vaccines.

U.S. President Donald Trump recently demanded the release of data from pharmaceutical companies to “justify the success of their various COVID-19 drugs,” which include the COVID-19 vaccines that his administration delivered to the public in 2020 through Operation Warp Speed.

Unfortunately, data from randomized controlled trials prove the opposite of success — the COVID-19 vaccines failed to reach clinically significant efficacy against infection with the coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2.

Furthermore, evidence suggests that the President was misled by public health officials who failed to fully disclose the very low absolute efficacy of the vaccines.

Absolute and relative risk reductions
After the launch of Operation Warp Speed, I conducted an independent analysis of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy from data published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

My analysis, which was published in Medicina in February 2021, showed that the absolute risk reductions of the Stage 3 clinical trials for the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were clinically insignificant at approximately 1%. Similar findings were verified by other researchers.

In the meantime, the public was told by public health officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, that the vaccines were around 95% effective in reducing the risk of a mild to moderate COVID-19 infection. The vaccines were lauded as the most effective tool to stop the spread of the coronavirus.

Observational studies also claimed that COVID-19 antiviral drugs were effective in preventing hospitalizations and deaths.

Nevertheless, evidence of “effectiveness” from these observational studies could not control for biases and confounding factors, nor rise to the gold standard of efficacy experimentally verified through participant randomization in clinical trials.
Many months later, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were not effective in stopping the spread of the coronavirus. What went wrong? Clearly, the expectations of high vaccine efficacy did not match my 2021 analysis. Who was right?

The answer is that both the public health officials and I were right, except that we each analyzed and reported different findings from the trial data. While I reported the vaccines’ absolute risk reductions, Fauci and public health officials reported the vaccines’ relative risk reductions.

Understanding the difference between these two risk measurements is crucial for correctly interpreting the efficacy of the vaccines.

Failure to communicate risks
Without getting into a complicated explanation of statistical differences between absolute and relative risk reductions (which I published here), the important point is that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated in their 2011 publication, “Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User’s Guide,” that BOTH absolute and relative risk reductions should be disclosed to the public.

Obviously, this did not occur during Operation Warp Speed. Indeed, members of the FDA committee that granted emergency use authorization of the vaccines ignored the FDA’s own guidelines for communicating risks to the public and omitted reporting the absolute risk reductions.

Public health officials falsely declared the much higher relative risk reductions as the true risk reductions of the vaccines. Apparently, pressure to support the vaccines as a quick way out of the COVID-19 pandemic promoted public health policy over valid and reliable scientific data.

Had the public been aware of the low clinical efficacy of the vaccines in absolute terms, the expectations of the vaccines to stop the spread of the coronavirus would not have been overstated, and the public, including the Trump administration, would not have been misled.

After publishing my findings on the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, I later analyzed data from trials of COVID-19 antivirals and found similar problems of unreported low absolute risk reductions associated with most of these drugs: “Absolute Risk Reductions in COVID-19 Antiviral Medication Clinical Trials.” "

Originally published by TrialSite News.
Ron Brown, Ph.D.’s research synthesizes novel theories and insights from the latest research findings on the causes and prevention of disease.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
TrialSite News is the only digital media dedicated 100% to transparent and open coverage of medical research and developments from around the globe.

[onawah]

ICAN Announces Senate Hearing on Science and Corruption, Featuring Groundbreaking Study and Announce Documentary, "An Inconvenient Study"
September 09, 2025
Informed Consent Action Network
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-r...ent-Study.html

"WASHINGTON, DC, Sept. 09, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), led by Emmy Award-winning producer and veteran medical journalist Del Bigtree, today calls attention to a crucial hearing of the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations titled “How the Corruption of Science Has Impacted Public Perception and Policies Regarding Vaccines.” The hearing, set for September 9, 2025 at 2:00 PM in Room SH-216 of the Senate Hart Building, will spotlight an alarming study conducted by a top infectious disease expert at a premier healthcare institution, which looks at the health outcomes of vaccinated kids vs. those of fully unvaccinated kids. The study was hidden from the public for years, until this hearing by the Homeland Security Committee.

The hearing’s revelations are dramatically mirrored in An Inconvenient Study, an investigative documentary set for nationwide release on October 3, 2025. This documentary will disclose the origins of the study featured in the hearing. How in 2016, Del Bigtree convinced the head of infectious disease at one of the most prestigious healthcare institutions in the world to conduct the most thorough vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study that has ever been done–and how this institution succeeded in burying the results.

ICAN’s lead counsel, Aaron Siri, Esq., will present the study’s shocking findings as he does in his new book, Vaccines, Amen, laying bare the legal and scientific implications of systemic corruption. As the film’s legal lead, Mr. Siri will illustrate why the evidence demands immediate public scrutiny.

Del Bigtree, Emmy-winning former producer of The Doctors, stated:

“What is so incredible is that a pro-vaccine scientist at a pro-vaccine medical institution conducted a study to prove "anti-vaxxers" wrong, but instead produced one of the most damning indictments of the vaccine program ever seen. We are facing a crisis in public health transparency, and the American people deserve the truth now.”

National press, policy advocates, public health stakeholders, and concerned citizens: view the hearing at thehighwire.com/watch, and updates and early access to trailers and more for An Inconvenient Study, launching October 3. Sign up at aninconvenientstudy.com

Release Highlights

Element Details
Hearing Title How the Corruption of Science Has Impacted Public Perception and Policies Regarding Vaccines
Date & Time September 9, 2025, 2:00 PM (Senate Hart Building, SH-216) Homeland Security Committee
Film Title An Inconvenient Study: The Cause of America’s Chronic Disease Epidemic Exposed, documentary feature
Film Release Date October 3, 2025
Key Figures Del Bigtree (Producer, ICAN CEO), Aaron Siri, Esq. (Lead Attorney, ICAN)

Related Links
https://www.aninconvenientstudy.com/
https://icandecide.org/
https://thehighwire.com/ "

[Isserley]

Posted by Kryztian (here)
The only vaccine I think I voluntarily took as an adult was for tetanus. If I was told I needed tetanus again (e.g., after I stepped on a rusty nail) I would get tetanus again.

The tetanus shot is not a harmless vaccine, it is very dangerous and in most cases is unnecessary because the tetanus bacteria Clostridium tetani is anaerobic and cannot live in places where there is oxygen.. so the chances of infection are minimal.

[onawah]

Interview With Dr. Joseph Sansone
The mRNA injections are NOT vaccines, they are biological and technological weapons of mass destruction.
James Roguski
Sep 10, 2025


Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v6wkenc/?pub=4