For any of my subscribers who have not installed a Theta Edge Node on their computer, why the heck not? Get it from thetatoken.org.
(Doctors for Covid Ethics) Press Release: Urgent open letter to EMA from doctors & scientists regarding vaccine safety concerns (link).
‘A group of scientists and doctors has today issued an open letter calling on the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to answer urgent safety questions regarding COVID-19 vaccines, or withdraw the vaccines’ authorisation’.
‘The letter describes serious potential consequences of COVID-19 vaccine technology, warning of possible autoimmune reactions, blood clotting abnormalities, stroke and internal bleeding, “including in the brain, spinal cord and heart”. The authors request evidence that each medical danger outlined “was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.”’
‘“Should all such evidence not be available”, the authors write, “we demand that approval for use of the gene-based vaccines be withdrawn until all the above issues have been properly addressed by the exercise of due diligence by the EMA.”’
‘The letter is addressed to Emer Cooke, Executive Director of the EMA, and was sent on Monday 1 March 2021. The letter was copied to the President of the Council of Europe and the President of the European Commission’.
‘It states: “We are supportive in principle of the use of new medical interventions.” However, “there are serious concerns, including but not confined to those outlined above, that the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines by the EMA was premature and reckless, and that the administration of the vaccines constituted and still does constitute ‘human experimentation’, which was and still is in violation of the Nuremberg Code.”’
–
–
Coronavirus hasn’t devastated the homeless as many feared (August 16, 2020, link).
–
–
BOMBSHELL: Stats Canada claims lockdowns, not COVID-19, are now driving ‘excess deaths’ (link).
‘Doctors, academics, and health scientists have been warning for months that using lockdowns as a cure for COVID-19 will be far worse than the disease’.
‘Canada’s national statistical agency stated in a report released yesterday that there are “excess deaths” in the country when compared to previous years, but those deaths are not due only to COVID-19, but are due increasingly to what it calls “indirect consequences of the pandemic,” citing as examples “delayed medical procedures” due to lockdowns and “increased substance use.”’
‘“In the early months of the pandemic, the weekly number of excess deaths and deaths caused by COVID-19 were closely aligned and mostly affected older populations, suggesting that COVID-19 itself was driving excess mortality in Canada,” stated Stats Canada in its March 10 report titled “Provisional death counts and excess mortality, January to December 2020.”’
‘“However, more recently, the number of excess deaths has been higher than the number of deaths due to COVID-19, and these deaths are affecting younger populations, suggesting that other factors, including possible indirect impacts of the pandemic, are now at play,” the report added’.
‘Stats Canada reported that in 2020, there were an estimated 296,373 deaths in Canada, representing an excess of 13,798 deaths above and beyond what would have been expected had there been no pandemic’.
‘“This is about 5% more deaths than expected in that period,” the report stated’.
‘But the statistics agency went on to point out how last year saw across the country a significant spike in, for example, overdose deaths, as lockdowns forced drug users to withdraw to themselves and away from “substance use treatment programs” that could help them’.
–
–
CONFIRMED: There Wasn’t A “Whole Ward of [Covid] Children” as Claimed by Laura Duffell of Kings College Hospital. (link).
‘The Trust responded:’
‘To manage predicted demand generated by the second wave of COVID-19, the Trust converted one 12 bed paediatric ward into a COVID-19 only ward’.
‘On 2 January 2021, there were two children at the Trust who were on this ward’.
–
–
Before COVID, Gates Planned Social Media Censorship of Vaccine Safety Advocates With Pharma, CDC, Media, China and CIA (link).
‘In October 2019, shortly before the COVID outbreak, Gates and other powerful individuals began planning how to censor vaccine safety advocates from social media during a table-top simulation of a worldwide pandemic, known as Event 201’.
‘Over the last two weeks, Facebook and other social media sites have deplatformed me and many other critics of regulatory corruption and authoritarian public health policies. So, here is some fodder for those of you who have the eerie sense that the government/industry pandemic response feels like it was planned — even before there was a pandemic’.
‘The attached document shows that a cabal of powerful individuals did indeed begin planning the mass eviction of vaccine skeptics from social media in October 2019, a week or two before COVID began circulating. That month, Microsoft founder Bill Gates organized an exercise of four “table-top” simulations of a worldwide coronavirus pandemic with other high-ranking “Deep State” panjandrums. The exercise was referred to as Event 201’.
‘Gates’ co-conspirators included representatives from the World Bank, the World Economic Forum (Great Reset), Bloomberg/Johns Hopkins University Populations Center, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, various media powerhouses, the Chinese government, a former Central Intelligence Agency/National Security Agency director (there is no such thing as a former CIA officer), vaccine maker Johnson & Johnson, the finance and biosecurity industries and Edelman, the world’s leading corporate PR firm’.
‘At Gates’ direction, these eminences role-played members of a Pandemic Control Council, wargaming government strategies for controlling the pandemic, the narrative and the population. Needless to say, there was little talk of building immune systems, off-the-shelf remedies or off-patent therapeutic drugs and vitamins, but lots of chatter about promoting uptake of new patentable antiviral drugs and vaccines’.
‘But the participants primarily focused on planning industry-centric, fear-mongering, police-state strategies for managing an imaginary global coronavirus contagion culminating in mass censorship of social media’.
‘Oddly, Gates now claims that the simulation didn’t occur. On April 12, 2020, Gates told BBC, “Now here we are. We didn’t simulate this, we didn’t practice, so both the health policies and economic policies, we find ourselves in uncharted territory.”’
‘Unfortunately for that whopper, the videos of the event are still available across the internet. They show that Gates and team did indeed simulate health and economic policies. It’s hard to swallow that Gates has forgotten’.
‘Gates’s Event 201 simulated COVID epidemic caused 65 million deaths at the 18-month endpoint and global economic collapse lasting up to a decade. Compared to the Gates simulation, therefore, the actual COVID-19 crisis is a bit of a dud, having imposed a mere 2.5 million deaths “attributed to COVID” over the past 13 months’.
‘The deaths “attributed to COVID” in the real-life situation are highly questionable, and must be seen in the context of a global population of 7.8 billion, with about 59 million deaths expected annually. The predictions of decade-long economic collapse will probably prove more accurate — but only because of the draconian lockdown promoted by Gates’.
‘Gates’ Event 201 script imagines vast anti-vaccine riots triggered by internet posts. The universal and single-minded presumption among its participants was that such a crisis would prove an opportunity of convenience to promote new vaccines, and tighten controls by a surveillance and censorship state’.
–
–
UK Column News – 12th March 2021. AstraZeneca mRNA injectable pulled by Bulgaria, Canada, Australia, Mexico, the Philippines, South Korea, Thailand, Denmark, Norway and Iceland while Italy and Austria have stopped using a particular batch. Script reading regulators have been side-lined by the emergency declaration. Doctors For Covid Ethics had previously highlighted blood clots as being a number 1 risk. Indirect consequences of the ‘pandemic’. Biden briefs as of now, total deaths in America: 527,726. This should be divided by 15 to discover the figure that the previous methodology used up to 2019 would produce. BBC’s Adrian Childs claim of a ward full of children with Covid was discovered to be misleading as there was only 2 children in it, a far cry from 12 you might expect to be the maximum capacity (website, youtube, bitchute, odysee).
–
–
Norway Investigates Whether AstraZeneca Vaccine Caused Deadly Blood Clots (link).
–
–
The Rights Of The Naturally Immune (link).
‘There is an important issue that, in the midst of all the talk of vaccines, has not gotten nearly the attention it deserves: the civil rights of those who have already developed natural immunity to the SARS-CoV-2, the virus that is said to cause Covid’.
‘Yesterday, I got the results of the test I took to detect whether I had developed a T-Cell response to the virus’.
‘Like the antibody test I took almost 2 months ago, it was positive’.
‘These two things would appear to demonstrate that for all intents and purposes my body knew exactly what to do with this virus and that it probably has the equipment to dispose of it again were it, or one of its cousins, to revisit me in the near-to-medium term’.
‘And even if one or another related strain were to visit me in that future, studies suggest strongly that the attack would be considerably less virulent than the one I overcame without excessive trouble in December’.
‘In a halfway rational world, what to do going forward in regard to getting a vaccine for the SARS-CoV-2 virus would be something I’d discuss with my doctor in the discreet quarters of the examination room. Were it to be offered, I would politely refuse it. And he, seeing the test evidence in my file, would raise no objection’.
‘And since the danger to me in the future from the virus is minuscule, and the science has clearly borne out what Fauci and Maria Van Kerkhove of the WHO flatly said was true before someone upstairs got to them—that asymptomatic transmission of respiratory diseases of this type is virtually nonexistent—I’d be free to live my life as I pleased without a mask, and with complete freedom of movement’.
‘But instead of this, I am facing enormous pressure to get a vaccine in order to recover my basic rights as a citizen’.
‘And even then, those in charge are saying, I will still have to run around with a completely useless, breath-robbing and personality-canceling mask on my face’.
‘And all this for a disease that, even before the introduction of vaccines, gave those infected by it a roughly 997.5 out of 1,000 chance of survival’.
‘The civil authorities have decided, in effect, that fully indemnified pharmaceutical companies, whose pasts are obscenely littered with fraud, and the calculated creation of crises in order to up revenues on their products (OxyContin anyone?), have the de facto “right” to force me to take an experimental vaccine that, in the very, very best of circumstances, will only match what my apparently well-functioning body has already given me without any side effects’.
‘And this, while straight out telling me that even if I submit to their government-coerced medical experiment I will probably still not get my full constitutional rights back’.
‘This is an important issue that needs to be addressed much more vigorously than has been the case up until now’.
–
–
Why would you trust these two and be controlled by them,and have the kill shots (tweet).
–
–
12 March 2020 “The public could be putting themselves *more* at risk from contracting coronavirus by wearing face masks.” “Jenny Harries, England’s deputy chief medical officer, said the masks could “actually trap the virus” and cause the person wearing it to breathe it in” (tweet).
–
–
According to their own data, the #NHS has just had it’s quietest winter in at least 12 years. Hurling abuse at me if I say this won’t change it. If you’re unhappy about this fact, please raise your concerns with your local NHS trust. It’s their data, not mine! (tweet).
–
–
Latest UK Adverse reaction stats. Now up to 502 deaths and 296,000 adverse reactions https://gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting (tweet).
–
–
I’m beginning to think that if the WHO are ignoring Ivermectin, ignore Tess Lawrie and every other advocate like @Covid19Critical, ignoring those sending letters such as this – then surely we can consider that saving human life is really not their aim? (tweet).
–
–
High Court rules man accused of Covid regulation breach has the right to refuse giving police details (link).
‘It has emerged that an appeal has ruled that a person who was suspected of breaching the coronavirus regulations was not required by law to give the police their name and address. At the High Court in Cardiff, Keith Neale who is a 60-year-old homeless man had his conviction for obstructing a police officer by failing to give over his details quashed’.
‘This is being cited as an important judgment regarding the legal duties of citizens under the coronavirus regulations. Mrs Justice Steyn and Lord Justice Dingemans were the Justice’s who have ruled that Mr Neale was under no common law obligation or statutory duty to give the police his name and address’.
‘Currently, almost a third of prosecutions made under the coronavirus regulations have been dropped. Figures from the Crown Prosecution Service have shown that 359 of 1,252 charges last year were either withdrawn or quashed in court’.
‘Mr Neale had previously been found guilty at Newport Magistrates’ Court for wilfully obstructing a police constable by declining to give his name and address when he was sat on a bench. Patrick Ormerod was the solicitor at Bindmans who acted for Mr Neale. He has said: ‘As the High Court stated, the courts should be wary of expanding police powers by implication – where parliament has chosen to compel speech it has done so expressly. The absence of an express obligation to give a name and address in the Coronavirus Regulations powerfully demonstrates that it does not exist’’.
‘He went on to say: ‘There is no general common law duty to assist the police by answering questions and a person cannot be guilty of wilfully obstructing a police officer by declining to do so where there is no specific legal duty’’.
–
–
Silencing Black Lives Matter: Priti Patel’s anti-protest law (link).
‘We knew this was coming. Priti Patel has been extremely clear about what she thinks of Black Lives Matter. “Those protests were dreadful,” she said last month. She’s also been clear about what she thinks of Extinction Rebellion. At a police conference last year she branded its activists “eco-crusaders turned criminals”. Now we see what she plans to do about it’.
‘On Tuesday, the Home Office published the police, crime, sentencing and courts bill. It covers a wide range of areas, from sentencing to digital information. But it has a specific section on the policing of protests. And the function of this section is simple: It aims to silence them. It is cancel culture on a statutory footing, directed against the left’.
‘This is not a metaphor. It is the literal and explicit function of the legislation’.
‘The policing bill does this by amending an old piece of legislation called the Public Order Act 1986. This older Act gave police officers powers which they have used against protestors ever since. If they believe that a demonstration risked “serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community”, they could impose restrictions on it – for instance on where it went, whether it moved or how many people could be present’.
‘This week’s policing bill adds a further justification for the restrictions: noise. If the noise of the protest “may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation” – for instance by distracting employees in a nearby office, then the police can impose restrictions. It goes without saying that this applies to almost any protest at all around parliament, the whole purpose of which is to get the attention of politicians. It can therefore cause “serious disruption” of an organisation’.
‘It also applies to passers-by. If the noise of the protest could have “a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession”, the police can impose restrictions. The standard for this threshold is very low indeed: If the police believe that just one person nearby could be caused “serious unease, alarm or distress”, they can impose restrictions’.
‘Wherever you look in the legislation, it works to lower the point at which the police can intervene. The old legislation, for instance, said they could do so to prevent “disorder, damage, disruption or intimidation”. That old formulation remains, but the Home Office has added a new criteria: “impact”’.
‘Look closely at those words. The ones in the old legislation were all negative. But the new one is entirely neutral. Legally, it seems very broad. But if you look closer it is actually quite specific. It aims its sights at the entire purpose of protest’.
‘The point of a demonstration is to be heard, to make an argument, to encourage others – whether they are people passing by, or workers in a company, or MPs in parliament – to hear the protestors’ point of view. In other words, to have an “impact”. This is why we call them ‘demonstrations’. It is a demonstration of a political view, expressed so that it can convince others. That is what makes it a vital part of free speech’.
‘Demonstrations are not just any kind of free speech. They are the free speech of the unheard. They are the last medium of communication and influence available to people who are frozen out of the formal political system, either in the media or in parliament. And those are the people Patel is trying to silence’.
‘The government is effectively sticking duct tape over the mouths of protestors. They are requiring, quite literally, that they do not make noise. They are silencing them. The inability to be heard is now a precondition for being able to protest’.
‘“Protesting in the way that people did last summer was not the right way at all,” Patel said of Black Lives Matter. Well now we know what the right way is: a way in which no-one can hear you’.
‘She then opens up a new front against demonstrators. She increases the number of them who can be prosecuted for failing to abide by the police restrictions’.
‘These restrictions are usually announced to protestors by police on loudspeakers and on social media. But when those who broke the restrictions ended up in court, they could always say they were unaware of them. And that was entirely reasonable. Protests are chaotic events, often involving large areas, many people and – yes – a lot of noise. It’s very likely a protestor won’t have seen a tweet from the police or been in a position to hear their announcements on a loudspeaker’.
‘This defence was open to them because the 86 Act said they had to have “knowingly” failed to comply. But the new legislation makes a very significant change. It applies if they “ought to know” of the restriction’.
‘This is an astonishing move. It means that even if a demonstrator hasn’t seen the tweet sent by police, or heard the announcements on a loudspeaker, they can still be prosecuted’.
‘Patel is also making the definition of a protest much wider. Previously “assemblies” and “processions”, which are the legal categories of these types of events, had to involve more than one person. But MPs have spent the last few years getting increasingly irritated by Steve Bray, the Remainer campaigner who stood outside parliament during the Brexit crisis. And the Home Office is keen to clamp down on Extinction Rebellion’s plan for a “Rebellion Of One” campaign which would see people take action on their own. The bill seeks to undermine these events by giving police the powers they would have over normal demonstrations even for “one-person protests”’.
‘It then takes aim at the statue debate which blew up around Black Lives Matter. The government seems intent on raising the maximum penalty for criminal damage of a memorial from three months to an astonishing and completely disproportionate ten years. A memorial is defined extremely broadly indeed, as “a building or other structure, or any other thing” which has “a commemorative purpose”’.
‘And then Patel does something really quite extraordinary, which should not be possible in a properly-functioning liberal democracy. She gives herself the power to fundamentally change the meaning of the law at any time without any real parliamentary scrutiny’.
‘The 86 Act hinges on the phrase “serious disruption”. It’s police suspicion of that eventuality which authorises the powers they have over protestors. But the new legislation allows the secretary of state to “make provision about the meaning” of the phrase. She can do this using something called statutory instruments’.
‘Statutory instruments are powers given to ministers allowing them to change or update law with no real parliamentary scrutiny. They’re supposed to be used to implement something that is in an Act of parliament – for instance by changing the type of speed cameras that are used in road safety legislation. It’s uncontroversial, unfussy stuff that parliament doesn’t really need to be consulted on. But Patel isn’t using them for anything like that. She is using them to unilaterally change the meaning of an Act of parliament’.
‘She could, of course, have put what her definition of “serious disruption” is in this new bill. That means it would have got all the scrutiny you’d normally get for legislation – committee stage, impact assessments, press attention, full parliamentary votes. But she hasn’t done that. Instead, she has given herself the power to make it whatever she wants, whenever she wants, with only a slim scrap of scrutiny available. The criteria for whether a protest can go ahead and how is now effectively in the hands of the home secretary’.
‘Just a few weeks ago, education secretary Gavin Williamson insisted that “free speech underpins our democratic society”. He did so because he was ostensibly concerned about left-wing students no-platforming conservatives in universities’.
‘But this legislation shows just how shallow those sentiments were. This government isn’t interested in free speech. It is interested in culture war. Those on the government’s side of the culture war have their speech legally protected. Those on the other side are silenced’.
More f**king tyranny from the government of occupation.
–
–
The Safe Way to Get Your COVID-19 Vaccine: #ScreenB4Vaccine (link).
‘It is safest to ensure that you and your loved ones are are not harboring viral antigens in your tissues at the time you are vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine— you can do so by screening for evidence of infection prior to undergoing vaccination. This article provides a simple algorithm to keep yourself and your family safe from a probable immunological harm’.
‘Fellow Citizen,’
‘In a recent letter to the FDA and Pfizer leaderships, I warned of the serious immunological danger, which the COVID-19 vaccine might pose to those recently of concurrently infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus’.
‘You may read my public letter of warning HERE’.
‘My very specific concern stems from the fact that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is known to accumulate in the inner lining of blood vessels — the so-called endothelium. So if a person with a recent or active COVID-19 infection is vaccinated, the highly effective and antigen specific immune response incited by the vaccine will, very likely, attack the inner lining of the blood vessel and cause damage, leading to blood clot formation. This could result in major serious problems like strokes and heart attacks, at least in some people. I project that this risk will be highest in the elderly, the infirm and those with cardiovascular disease’.
‘Of course, it’s not just the inner lining of blood vessels that the virus goes to in infected persons. Many tissues are invaded by the virus SARS-CoV-2 in infected persons. So a variety of tissues in the recently infected person will carry viral antigens that could be targeted and damaged by the immune system’.
‘This principle of antigenic persistence following infection is not a new one. In fact it is quite well established in the basic immunology field. HERE is one paper demonstrating the fact in the case of the Influenza virus and vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV). There is no reason to believe that SARS-CoV-2 or any other virus is any different: Viral antigens persist in the body of the infected for quite some time after clinical signs of infection have resolved’.
‘So, using this nearly certain scientific prognostication, I will state that any anatomic location in the body where the viral antigens may be present, is also likely to be targeted and damaged by the vaccine immune response’.
‘Here I am writing this simple guidance algorithm, which any concerned citizen and careful clinician can use to keep themselves, their loved ones and their patients as safe as possible from a potential vaccine triggered side-effect’.
‘As a disclaimer, here I am not addressing the issue of allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine. Because the data from Pfizer and Moderna on vaccine allergies are robust. These vaccines were shown by the Pfizer and Moderna trials to be no more prone to causing allergies that our other commonly used vaccines. So the probability of a vaccine allergic reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine is very low — and the appropriate mitigation steps are already in place to treat any persons who experience classical vaccine allergies, when they receive the COVID-19 vaccine. You should not be weary of these — unless we have a history of serious or severe past allergic reactions, in which case the likely recommendation is to forego vaccination’.
‘The real safety concern I am addressing here is that vaccinating individuals who might already have viral antigens in their bodies, at the time they get vaccinated, might trigger a dangerous inflammatory reaction in the tissues where the antigen is localized. And in the case of the elderly, the infirm or those with significant cardiovascular disease, such vaccine incited inflammatory reactions could prove deadly’.
–
–
Fun fact: the #covid mRNA vaccines now account for more side effect reports to VAERS since December than EVERY OTHER VACCINE COMBINED in the last year. And 8 times the number of death reports. (tweet).
–
–
WORLD DOCTORS ALLIANCE The #PCR was widely known to be useless a year ago but governments around the world in lock step, cruelly shutdown their economies & imprisoned healthy people inhumanely & without justification. They widely used the PCR tests regardless… (tweet).
–
–
Pupils at Bourn End Academy forced to wear this button on their blazer to be identified as not tested and non mask wearers discrimination at its worst. Alleged buttons in the pipeline for non-vaccinated pupils (tweet).
Wear it like it’s 1939 all over again.
–
–
So it seems ‘Operation Deflection’ is now gathering pace. The narrative has hit a brick wall with regards one of the deadliest pandemics in history. So it’s time to switch tact and politicise the usual outrages which plague the left-wing imagination: discrimination/race/diversity (tweet).
–
–
I advised people to take common-sense precautions against COVID-19. But I did not order South Dakotans to shelter in place. I never mandated masks. And South Dakota was the only state in America to never order a single business or church to close. (tweet).
–
–
BREAKING: The Cabinet has never been briefed about the cost of the current lockdown – on mental health, cancer diagnosis or financial tradeoffs. Via @FraserNelson / @Telegraph (tweet).
–
–
I am not a vax denier, indeed I had the first shot (which made be a bit ill). I find this reported WHO document rather disturbing though because it is so manipulative – it deploys methods and strategies which may be inappropriate to democratic debate. https://euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/315761/Vocal-vaccine-deniers-guidance-document.pdf (tweet).
–
–
Met Police finally reach the bottom of the barrel after tasering a 10 year old girl (link).
This qualifies as child abuse in my book. Does anyone disagree?
–
paulthepaperbear 