SC244-7

https://www.globalresearch.ca/all-makes-sense-once-you-realize-they-want-kill-us/5758884

It All Makes Sense Once You Realize They Want to Kill Us

....Do you like his choice of words: “blowing up the trials”? Do you think it is a fair description of what the drug companies did?

Yes, it is.

And what possible motive would the drug companies have to blow up the trials? I can see only two possibilities:

1. They think their vaccine is so terrific, it will save the lives of many of the people in the placebo group.
2. They expect a high percentage of the people in the vaccine group to get either severely sick or die, so they want to hide the evidence of vaccine-linked injury.

Which is it?

You know the answer. Everyone watching this farce knows the answer.

Question– Okay, so let’s cut to the chase: Are the vaccines are safe or not?

No, they are not safe. The way we decide whether a drug is safe or not is by putting it through a rigorous process of testing and clinical trials. After the testing, the data is passed on to physicians, statisticians, chemists, pharmacologists, and other scientists who review the data and make their recommendations or criticisms. That didn’t happen with the Covid vaccines, in fact, all the normal standards and protocols were suspended in the name of “urgency”. But many believe that the “urgency” was manufactured to push through vaccines that would never have been approved on their own merits. All you have to do is look through the vaccine injury data (VAERS) and you’ll see this is the most lethal medical intervention of all time and, yet, the public health experts, the media and the government keep crowing that they’re “safe and effective”. It’s nonsense and the drug companies know it’s nonsense which is why they reject all liability for the people that are going to be killed by these “poison-death shots.”

Do you know what goes on inside your body after you are injected with one of these “gene based” vaccines?

Once the vaccine enters the bloodstream it penetrates the cells that line the blood vessels forcing them to produce spike proteins that protrude into the bloodstream like millions of microscopic thorns. These thorns activate blood platelets which trigger blood clotting followed shortly after by an immune response that destroys the infected cells thus weakening the vascular system while draining the supply of killer lymphocytes. In this way, the vaccine launches a dual attack on the body’s critical infrastructure causing widespread tissue damage throughout the circulatory system while leaving the immune system less able to fend off future infection.

Now if you think you can have a long-and-happy without a functioning circulatory system, then none of this matters. But if you’re bright enough to realize that wreaking havoc on your vascular system is the fast-track to the graveyard, then you’ll probably understand that injecting these “poison-death shots” is a particularly bad idea.

By the way, it’s a real stretch to call these hybrid injections, “vaccines”. They have about as much in common with a traditional vaccine as a python does with a coffee table. Nothing. The “vaccine” moniker was chosen in order to shore-up public confidence, that’s all. It’s part of a marketing strategy. There is no real similarity. The majority of people trust vaccines and see them as a shining example of medical achievement. The drug companies wanted to tap into that trust and use it for their own purposes. That’s why they called it a “vaccine” instead of “gene therapy” which more accurately describes ‘what it does.’ But–like we said– it’s just a marketing strategy.

Have you ever wondered how the drug companies were able to roll out their own-individual vaccines just weeks apart from each other? That’s a pretty good trick, don’t you think; especially since vaccine development typically takes from 10 to 15 years. How do you think they managed that? Here’s an excerpt from an article which provides a little background on the topic:

“The virus behind the outbreak that began in Wuhan, China, was identified on Jan. 7. Less than a week later — on Jan. 13 — researchers at Moderna and the NIH had a proposed sequence for an mRNA vaccine against it, and, as the company wrote in government documents, “we mobilized toward clinical manufacture.” By Feb. 24, the team was shipping vials from a plant in Norwood, Mass., to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in Bethesda, Md., for a planned clinical trial to test its safety.” (“Researchers rush to test coronavirus vaccine in people without knowing how well it works in animals”, Stat)

Got that? “The virus broke out in Wuhan…on Jan. 7, and less than a week later Moderna had a proposed sequence for an mRNA vaccine against it???

Really? Is that the same Moderna that had been playing-around with mRNA for over a decade but was never able to successfully bring a vaccine to market?

Yep, the very same company. Here’s more:

“And by Feb. 24, the team was shipping vials from a plant in Norwood, Mass??”

Wow! Another Covid miracle! You almost get whiplash watching these companies crank out their “wonder drugs” at record-breaking speed.

Keep in mind, there’s a very high probability that the virus was man-made, (In other words, it’s a bioweapon.) and the people who have been implicated in the funding and creation of that bioweapon are also closely aligned with the big drug companies that have produced the antidote in record time that has already netted tens of billions of dollars in profits for a drug for which there was no reliable animal testing, no long-term safety data, and no formal regulatory approval.

So I’ll ask you again: Doesn’t that all sound a bit suspicious?

Is it really that hard to see the outline of a political agenda here? After all, aren’t the drug companies working with the regulatory agencies that are working with the public health officials that are working with the media that are working with the corrupted politicians that are working with the Intel agencies that are working with the meddling globalist billionaires that are working with the giant private equity firms that oversee the entire operation pulling the appropriate strings whenever needed?

It sure looks like it.

And, don’t the tectonic social changes we’ve seen in the last year have more to do with a broader scorched-earth campaign launched by the “parasite class” against the rest of humanity than they do with a fairly-mild virus that kills mainly old and frail people with multiple underlying health conditions?

Right, again. In fact, many have noticed the cracks in the pandemic artifice from the very beginning, just as many have pointed out that the virus-meme is just the mask behind which parasites continue to conduct their global restructuring project. In short, it’s all about politics; bare-knuckle, take-no-prisoners NWO politics.

Answer– You’ve asked a number of questions about the animal trials, but none about the biodistribution and the pharmacokinetics studies that were done at the same time. Why is that? (Note--Pharmacokinetics; “the branch of pharmacology concerned with the movement of drugs within the body.”)

Question– I didn’t know there were any. Did the media report on them?

Answer– No, they didn’t. They completely ignored them, even though they were produced by Pfizer and provide essential information about where the substance in the vaccine goes in the body, in what amounts, and for how long. By knowing how the drug is distributed, it is possible to make educated assumptions about its effect on the organs and other tissue. In other words, these studies are invaluable. The Doctors for Covid Ethics have done extensive research on the studies and written a report titled “The Pfizer mRNA vaccine: pharmacokinetics and toxicity”. Here’s a few excerpts that help to illustrate the dangers of the vaccines:

“As with any drug, a key consideration for the toxicity of the COVID mRNA vaccines is where exactly in the body they end up, and for how long they will stay there. Such questions, which are the subject of pharmacokinetics, are usually thoroughly investigated during drug development. Initial studies on pharmacokinetics and also on toxicity are carried out in animals… this document has rather far-reaching implications: it shows that Pfizer—as well as the authorities that were apprised of these data— must have recognized the grave risks of adverse events after vaccination even before the onset of clinical trials. Nevertheless, Pfizer’s own clinical trials failed to monitor any of the clinical risks that were clearly evident from these data, and the regulatory authorities failed to enforce proper standards of oversight. This dual failure has caused the most grievous harm to the public….

What do Pfizer’s animal data presage for biological effects in humans?

• Rapid appearance of spike protein in the circulation.
• Toxicity to organs with expected high rates of uptake, in particular placenta and
  lactating breast glands
• Penetration of some organs might be higher with the real vaccine than with this
  luciferase model…The rapid entry of the model vaccine into the circulation means that we must expect the spike protein to be expressed within the circulation, particularly by endothelial cells. ( Endothelial- The thin layer of cells lining the blood vessels) We have seen before that this will lead to activation of blood clotting through direct activation of platelets and also, probably more importantly, through immune attack on the endothelial cells….

Summary

Pfizer’s animal data clearly presaged the following risks and dangers:

• blood clotting shortly after vaccination, potentially leading to heart attacks, stroke, and venous thrombosis
• grave harm to female fertility
• grave harm to breastfed infants
• cumulative toxicity after multiple injections

With the exception of female fertility, which can simply not be evaluated within the short period of time for which the vaccines have been in use, all of the above risks have been substantiated since the vaccines have been rolled out—all are manifest in the reports to the various adverse event registries. Those registries also contain a very considerable number of reports on abortions and stillbirths shortly after vaccination, which should have prompted urgent investigation.
….
Of particularly grave concern is the very slow elimination of the toxic cationic lipids. In persons repeatedly injected with mRNA vaccines containing these lipids… this would result in cumulative toxicity. There is a real possibility that cationic lipids will accumulate in the ovaries. The implied grave risk to female fertility demands the most urgent attention of the public and of the health authorities.

Since the so-called clinical trials were carried out with such negligence, the real trials are occurring only now—on a massive scale, and with devastating results. … Calling off this failed experiment is long overdue. Continuing or even mandating the use of this poisonous vaccine, and the apparently imminent issuance of full approval for it are crimes against humanity.” (“The Pfizer mRNA vaccine: pharmacokinetics and toxicity”, The Doctors for Covid Ethics)

Don’t you think people are entitled to know what the government wants to inject into their bodies? Don’t you think they have a right to know how it will effect their immune systems, their vital organs and their overall health? Don’t you think they have the right to decide for themselves which drugs they will take and which they will refuse to take?

Forcing someone to take a drug they do not want, is not just wrong. It’s unAmerican. Which is why people should reject vaccine mandates as a matter of principle. They are an attack on personal liberty, the foundation of our constitutional system. It’s a principle worth dying for.

As for the mass vaccination campaign, it is the most maniacally-genocidal project ever concocted by man. There’s simply no way to calculate the amount of suffering and death we are about to face for trusting people whose policies were obviously shaped by their undiluted hatred of humanity. As German microbiologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi said:

“In the end, we’re going to see mass illness and deaths among people who normally would have had wonderful lives ahead of them.”

It is a great tragedy.

....

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/56825.htm

Russia Tells NATO to Shove Abusive Relationship

Russia told the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization to shove its faux diplomacy, thus ending about 30 years of post-Cold War talks and delegations which have achieved little to nothing in terms of normalizing relations.

Moscow may have slammed the door, but it’s not locked. Russia said that from now on it is up to NATO to take the first step in improving relations, thereby implying that sometime in the future Moscow would be open to pursuing a new relationship.

NATO expressed “regret” over Russia’s decision to cut diplomatic channels. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas asserted Russia was making already-fraught relations worse, plunging communications back into the icy recesses of the Cold War.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced this week that Russia was closing down its representative mission to NATO in the Belgian capital, Brussels, where the U.S.-led military alliance is headquartered. Russia also gave notice to NATO to close its information bureau in Moscow. Any further communication that is required can be conducted through the office of the Russian ambassador to Belgium.

Such paring down of communication links may seem a reckless move at a time of heightened tensions between NATO and Russia. Surely, it might be better to keep as many communication lines open as possible in order to prevent misunderstandings and miscalculations?

The truth is, however, that NATO’s ties with Russia have degenerated a long time ago to the abject level of an abusive relationship. Moscow is thus right to walk away, given the circumstances. To stick around only invites more contempt from the NATO side. That would be more dangerous.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia and NATO agreed to set up dialogue and partnership. That culminated in the Russia-NATO Founding Act of 1997. Delegations were hosted in the respective capitals.

But in contravention of earlier promises, the NATO alliance has expanded eastwards to include in its memberships several former Warsaw Pact countries that border Russian territory. NATO is eyeing former Soviet Republics Georgia and Ukraine to join the 30-member bloc which Moscow has denounced as a “red line” endangering its national security.

The relentless expansion of NATO around Russia’s western borders has greatly disturbed the strategic balance deterring nuclear war. Arguably, the situation is even more precarious than at the height of the former Cold War.

In addition, the United States has, in tandem, ditched nuclear arms controls treaties during its encroachment on Russian territory. The Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty was unilaterally abrogated by the U.S. in 2002, likewise the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty in 2019 and the Open Skies Treaty in 2020.

This all amounts to a gross repudiation by the United States and its allies of the Russia-NATO Founding Act.

To add insult to injury, all the while NATO has reduced communications with Russia to one-sided accusations of alleged Russian malign conduct. Moscow is accused of “threatening” Europe and Western democracies, of “invading Ukraine” and of “annexing Crimea” among other unsubstantiated allegations, such as “shooting down” a Malaysian airliner, “assassinating” opponents with chemical weapons and blowing up ammo dumps in the Czech Republic. The evident pattern here is to pump out propaganda to antagonize.

If NATO conducted its relations with Russia as a proper partnership, the representative missions would be able to discuss allegations in reasoned debate with evidence and counter-evidence. As it is, NATO has not engaged even minimally with Russian representatives in recent years. Accusations are presented as a fait accompli without any due process for Russia to rebut. NATO’s communications with Russia are more akin to a medieval inquisition where the accused is forbidden from having due process and recourse to cross-examine the accusers.

The last straw for Russia was the expulsion earlier this month of eight Russian diplomats from its Brussels mission to NATO. Without any substantiation, NATO accused the Russian officials of being “undeclared spies” and promptly blackballed them.

The complete shutdown this week by Russia of its NATO mission in Brussels as well as of NATO’s bureau in Moscow was described by the Russian foreign ministry as “just retaliation”. Germany’s Heiko Maas would do well to take his head out of the sand and do some reflection on historical reality instead of absurdly blaming Russia for “making relations worse”. Was it Russia that backed the coup d’état in Kiev in 2014, for instance, that set off the Ukraine conflict? Is Russia installing missile systems on the Mexican border with the U.S.?

Blaming Russia for freezing the relationship is classic getting things back to front. Washington and its NATO allies are the ones who have been turning the dial on the thermostat always downwards, and arrogantly presuming there would be no icy consequences.

There has been no reciprocal communication from NATO for years, but rather only relentless Russophobia and baseless allegations. In addition to psychological warfare, the U.S./NATO hybrid war has involved mounting nuclear threats to Russia’s national security from the installation of new missile systems in Poland and Romania.

As Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigui pointed out this week, the flights of NATO warplanes near Russia’s borders have increased by 30 percent compared with last year. This week Russian jets were scrambled to ward off two U.S. B-1B nuclear capable bombers from Russia’s airspace in the Black Sea.

The reality is that Washington and its NATO allies have increasingly treated Russia with disrespectful, irrational attitude. For Russia to maintain a fake dialogue with an organization that has gone from supposed partnership to adversarial, and indeed overtly hostile – that in itself only invites further contempt. It is more dangerous to stay in such a relationship than to be out of it.

Far from jeopardizing security, Russia’s decision to walk away from NATO is the right one. It is right to end the illusion of dialogue and partnership when the reality is the other party is cynically offering to shake hands while trying to piss down your leg.