- The Facts:
Centralized banking has been devised for a purpose unseen and much different than what the public and most of our elected leaders/legislators believe. The purpose is not to stabilize, but to destabilize economies for ulterior motives.
- Reflect On:
How does a system described in the article benefit the people at all? What is really going on here and how did we get into this mess? What alternatives and solutions would you think of?
Before you begin...
Do Probability and Statistics interest you? Perhaps not. But what about the secret workings of a casino? They are but two sides of the same coin. One side is science, the other application. Economics is the science of the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services. The application of economics, if honed to a specific, razor sharp intention becomes the most powerful weapon on Earth. This weapon is called the Central Banking system. No country owns this weapon. It is wielded by a tiny circle of people. The identities of these people are largely hidden, but it is abundantly clear they owe allegiance to no country, despot or political ideology. They deploy this weapon at their own discretion. We are the frogs in the proverbial pot of water and they are controlling the stove.
Some basics …
In the 2019 fiscal year the United States Government will spend 1.1 trillion dollars more than it will collect in taxes.(source) This number is called the “budget deficit.” Operating with a budget deficit is nothing new in our government’s history. This has been going on for decades, independent of which party has controlled the White House or Congress. If you were to add together all the deficits over the years you would arrive at a sum of approximately 22 trillion dollars. This number is called the “national debt.”
--> Our Journalism Is Moving - Our investigative journalism and reporting is moving to our new brand called The Pulse. Click here to stay informed.
The ability to “pay off” this debt seems impossible, yet we continue to operate more or less the same way, borrowing more and more to meet our country’s obligation to social services, defense, infrastructure, and obligations to our debt holders. Most people are aware of these staggering numbers, yet few of us seem to consider basic questions about the system, like “Where does the money come from?” or “Who would be stupid enough to continue lending us these sums given our poor track record of even balancing our budget?” The answers to these questions are astounding and can lead to an understanding of our nation’s history and monetary system that is absolutely necessary to put nearly every aspect of geopolitics into perspective.
In “The Creature From Jekyll Island,” author G. Edward Griffin adeptly leads the reader on an intriguing exploration of the origin of money, lending and the banking system and its codependence with the governance of people. Through his thorough examination of military conflicts, the rise and fall of governments and repeated taxpayer funded bailouts, Mr. Griffin makes it abundantly clear that human history has been driven more by the inner workings of centralized banking and not the will of individuals or even the apparent vision of their appointed leaders.
The Federal Reserve, covertly conceived by the wealthiest few and brought into existence by Congress in 1913, is part of a global system of centralized banking that has been devised for a purpose unseen and much different than what the public and most of our elected leaders and legislators believe. The result of this system, as evidenced by repeated examples, has not been to stabilize economies but to destabilize them. In his diligent and erudite analysis, Mr. Griffin goes further in asserting that this has been the intention of the founders of the modern banking system all along.
To accept his bold assertion it is useful to first consider how this is accomplished before understanding why it is done in the first place. A full analysis of this subject is obviously beyond the scope of a single article. However, we can still arrive at a basic understanding of the system and its repercussions here.
Show me the money
As stated above, the total national debt is on the order of 22 trillion dollars as of 2019. However, according to The Federal Reserve there is only about 1.7 trillion dollars of currency in circulation. Where are the other 20 trillion dollars? Clearly, it exists only as numbers attached to accounts existing in computer memory. Monetary transactions are no longer dominated by the exchange of currency backed by a commodity (like gold or silver), they are instead represented by the increase of a receiver’s account balance that corresponds to the equivalent decrement in the account of the payer. This, of course, seems like a reasonable system that is equitable to both parties. However, if you examine it more closely, certain fundamental questions arise, primarily, where did the money come from in the first place?
The total amount of money in circulation in 1950 was approximately 27 billion dollars. How do we now have 60 times more money? The answer is that it was created by our banks and the Federal Reserve, an institution uniquely endowed by our government to “print” money at its own discretion. This should strike you as unnerving for two reasons. First, our elected officials do not decide when more money is put into circulation, they have abdicated that authority to the Federal Reserve that acts independently. Second, why is there ever a reason to do this in the first place?
Clearly, the amount of goods and services generated by the country has grown with our population and its concomitant increase in our labor force. Also, innovation in manufacturing and the development of technologies have given rise to less expensive ways to make stuff. We have also engineered methods for extracting our natural resources, making the required raw materials more abundantly available for industry. These changes continually influence the supply and demand for goods and services that ultimately will dictate what things cost. These are the “market” forces that capitalism relies upon to self-regulate and ostensibly create an environment for innovation. If the amount of money in circulation is left untouched, prices will continually readjust to represent the total value of the total amount of goods and services generated by an economy. There should never be a need to put more money into circulation.
Where does money actually come from?
The expansion of the supply of money is less accomplished by the actual printing of legal tender than it is by the “creation” of debt. To illustrate this, let us consider a simplistic model of how a bank works. First, a bank serves as a secure place to store depositor’s money. The bank issues the depositor a receipt of deposit. Long ago these receipts were recognized as being more convenient than actually using coins to facilitate transactions. The “money” was in a vault, but the receipts of deposit, when they began to be accepted as payment by a third party, began functioning as money itself. Griffin explains that this form of money is termed “receipt money.” The modern representation of this convenience has taken the form of checking accounts.
When the bank acts as a lending institution, it can also provide depositors with an added incentive to keep their holdings there in the form of interest. The bank can pay this interest on its deposits by lending this money out to other customers in the form of mortgages, business and personal loans, etc. and charging a higher interest on these sums. The ability of private citizens and industry to have access to money to purchase homes or invest in their businesses or education allows for economic growth and a higher standard of living and is generally considered a good thing and something we all depend upon.
When we receive a loan to purchase something that we cannot “afford” we understand that it has not been given to us for free. We will pay for it over time. In fact, we will pay more for it through a loan than if we purchased it outright. The higher the rate of interest and the longer the term of the loan, the more we end up paying. In the case of a home mortgage paid over thirty years the borrower ends up paying several times the amount they borrowed. This is all spelled out to the borrower when they sign the promissory note and agree to the terms.
However, there is something insidious happening when banks lend money today. The money that gets lent is not possessed by the bank, it is owned by the depositors of the money. The depositors are free to continue to withdraw from their accounts, meanwhile the borrowers also have access to the very same pool of money. When your bank loans a sum of money to another party the amount in your account there does not get reduced. So, where does the money come from? The bank is essentially creating money out of debt and subsequently collecting interest on it. This money is added to circulation and when this happens, the value of every single dollar in the system gets depleted. Prices go up. This is inflation, and it can exact a devastating toll on the system depending on how much debt is created.
As amazing as it may seem, banks are only required to keep available a fraction (10% or less) of the amount of money they lend on hand to meet the needs of their depositors. Clearly there may come a time when a large number of depositors demand their money to be returned at the same time. This is the dreaded “run on the bank” which should send the bank into insolvency. However, this rarely happens these days for two reasons. One is based upon the confidence we place on our banking institutions to make sound loans and upon the economy in general. As long as we are confident that the bank will return our money if we asked, we won’t demand it back. Secondly, banks operating in the central banking system are able to borrow money from other banks to meet the demands of their depositors when needed.
The Fed is a Monetary Cartel that has been setting us up for bigger failures
The Federal Reserve, with the power Congress has endowed it with, sets standards for the portion of money banks within its system are allowed to loan compared to the money in their “vaults.” Because the profitability of the bank is directly related to the amount of money they loan out, banks are motivated to maximize the amount they lend. Furthermore, because a lifeline to more money through other banks exists, there is little reason for any individual bank to be conservative. By uniting banks under common lending practices it becomes clear that no individual bank will be allowed to go bankrupt. However, there now exists the possibility that many or all banks may fail simultaneously with a deep and widespread dive in consumer confidence and/or an accumulation of a great amount of bad debt. Note that the latter will automatically give rise to the former as in the case of the great recession of 2008 when it became recognized that a massive number of irresponsible home loans were made over the course of a decade.
When such a crisis arises, it is made clear to the public that a dire situation is at hand and it would result in major suffering for all if the government didn’t intervene. Government steps in by infusing the banking system with large sums of money. This money does not exist anywhere. It is created on the fly by the issuance of government bonds, essentially IOUs. But who would be willing to accept government IOUs in such a crisis? Nobody. Nobody, except the Federal Reserve. Through the purchase of government debt the Federal Reserve floods the system with essentially a limitless amount of “money.” This money did not come from the sale of goods and services or gold bars from the treasury. This money is ink on paper called Federal Reserve Checks which are used to fund government debt and ultimately result in greater balances in commercial bank accounts when the government spends it. The crisis gets averted. Or does it?
In the short run, the economy does not grind to a halt, and we laud the intervention as a success. However, there has been no increase in the amount of goods, commodities or services that the nation possesses. There is just more money out there. When that happens, the value of every single piece of currency, including the money in your wallet, drops. We grumble at the necessity of more taxes and less governmental services but few taxpayers realize the extent that their own wealth has been decremented by an unseen cost called inflation, the direct cause of poor lending practices of our banks. We are told that we are in a crisis for a number of vague and complex reasons having to do with rarely agreed upon economic theories and a failure of our leaders to appreciate them. In fact, the reasons are simple. We have a system where banks can and will make the most profit if they make more loans. When they fail, the Federal Reserve ultimately steps in by creating more debt, which we shoulder by allowing our earnings and savings to be devalued.
Let us briefly review. The Federal Reserve has united most banks to accept universal lending practices. This effectively prevents individual banks from defaulting on their obligations, but creates a situation where a nationwide or global banking crisis can occur. When (not if) that occurs, the Fed has an understanding with the government that it will infuse the system with money by “buying” government debt (in the form of government bonds) that will be used to “salvage” the system. The public will eventually pay for this in two ways. First, through the obligation to repay the debt and interest and second, through inflation as money floods the system. It should be clear then that this maneuver is designed to keep lending institutions in perpetual business aggrandizing their wealth.
Central Banks make money by doing nothing
It is important at this point to look more closely at the money making machine the banks use for generating profit. Recall that banks are only required to hold no more than ten percent of their deposits (assets) on hand and are free to loan out the rest. However, there is a greater harm they can exact through our banking system’s definition of an “asset.” Let us say that a bank holds $1,000,000 in deposits. It can write $900,000 worth of loans on that money keeping $100,000, or 10% of it on its books as “reserves.” That money loaned out does not exist, it is created the moment the loan is written. Once written, that loan, effectively the promise of the borrower to pay it back, is now considered an asset of the bank too! This means that the bank can subsequently write loans of 90% of that “asset” (or another $810,000) as well. Once the second round of loans go out, they too are considered assets. This iterative process effectively allows the bank to “loan” out $9 for every $1 it was given as a deposit. The bank uses the one million dollars in deposits (reserves) to “create” nine million dollars in debt and, of course, earn interest on it. The term “earn” is highly questionable in this scheme. The bank provides no real service, creates no tangible product, does no labor and assumes little risk yet is able to collect a continuous stream of money from assets that never existed until the moment someone agreed to borrow from them. This is called “fractional reserve banking” and as shocking as it seems, it exists wherever an economy has abandoned a commodity (gold or silver) backed currency. In other words, everywhere.
The Fed makes the most when we are at War
Turning back to Mr. Griffin’s assertion that the system has been designed to create instability, we can see that the banking system reaps the greatest benefit when needs exceed resources. The Federal Reserve (and any central bank) has the sole authority to create money when the need for debt arises. Is it unreasonable that central banks, functioning without accountability to any authority, government or otherwise, would welcome every opportunity to exert this power, especially when it is so lucrative to them?
If we were to examine the situation from a central banker’s perspective we would regard global events in the context of debt. What kind of event creates the greatest and most urgent need for resources? War. War requires a nation to redirect their youth away from the creation of goods and services and into military service. There is the cost of munitions, fuel, care for the wounded and ultimately reparations. The bigger and the longer the war the better …if you were a central banker.
The Greatest Conspiracy in our history is still in play today
Could there really be an unholy alliance between central banking and governmental war machines? This may be obvious to some, but to many this approaches absurdity. A government for and by the people seems too powerful to be influenced by financiers and monetary policy makers. If banking insiders had any influence over our elected officials, the media would bring immediate public attention to it, right? In order for this kind of treachery to take place it would require the hidden collaboration of a very small group of extremely influential persons in government, central banking and the media. This would be a conspiracy, which many believe would be impossible today.
There is no question that it has happened in the past. As detailed in “The Creature from Jekyll Island,” the United States entered WWI after The Lusitania, a massive British liner with 195 American civilians on board, was sunk by a German U-boat attack. Prior to setting sail from New York, The Lusitania was loaded with tons of weaponry including six million rounds of ammunition purchased with funds raised for England through JP Morgan’s investment house. This was done in broad daylight with the ship’s manifest a matter of public record. The German government protested that using such a ship to transport weapons was in direct violation of international neutrality treaties. The American government denied this was taking place. The German embassy then appealed to the American people directly, placing ads in newspapers urging them not to book passage on The Lusitania as it represented a strategic target that would fall under German attack. The U.S. State Department prevented these warnings from being run.
At this time J. P. Morgan, one of the chief architects of the newly created Federal Reserve, was profiting from selling English and French bonds to American investors to raise money for their war effort against Germany. In addition, the two countries spent significant sums on products purchased from companies in Morgan’s control. When it became clear that Germany was nearing victory through their control of shipping lanes in the Atlantic with their U-boats, Morgan’s income stream was threatened. England, France and the American investing house knew their causes would only be saved if the United States entered the war against Germany. At the time this seemed a practical impossibility as Woodrow Wilson, approaching reelection, was riding a broad anti-war sentiment sweeping the country. This all changed when the The Lusitania sank. Morgan had, in the meantime, purchased control over major segments of the media and flooded the public with pro-war editorial. The media, the banks and our government worked together to see that America entered WWI on April 6, 1917. War expenditures, as always, were fueled by monetary expansion engineered by The Fed. Between 1915 and 1920 the monetary supply doubled and the value of our currency dropped by nearly 50%.
WWI is one of many examples in our planet’s history where the spoils of war went largely to the inner circles of the banking system that often finance both sides of conflicts. If this version of history still seems too incredible to believe, consider this: How often would a nation engage in war if it didn’t have the money to pay for it? Nations rarely do, unless they have a central banking system. Conventional history books paint our species’ long tradition of conflict as good vs. evil or liberty vs. tyranny while characterizing dictators and their ideologies as threats to the greater good. The real threat is hidden in plain sight and is far more diabolical, as it is not confined by borders or allegiance to governments that inevitably rise and fall.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Abductions & Car Vandalism – Startling Australian UFO Report Unclassified
Before you begin...
An uncovered Australian report performed by their Department of Defence. “Scientific Intelligence — General — Unidentified Flying Objects” is trending again. Those who have done extensive research on UFOs will find the Australian version of disclosure to be far more intellectually honest than the American version. Albeit it was conducted decades ago.
According to ex-US intelligence official Luis Elizondo, the Defense Department’s Inspector General is presently conducting three reviews. The inquiries vary from the Department of Defense’s handling of UFO claims to Elizondo’s alleged whistleblower retribution. The open IG cases are crucial to Australia’s report because they establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US Department of Defense is being dishonest and shady when it comes to the UFO subject. For decades, Australia has been a loyal friend of the United States. Within Australia’s boundaries, they share a military installation (Pine Gap). When a close defense ally’s intelligence agencies determined that the US was not being intellectually honest in its approach, perhaps it is reasonable to conclude that there is more to the tale than the 144 incidents studied since 2004 by the UAPTF.
The CIA became alarmed at the overloading of military communications during the mass sightings of 1952 and considered the possibility that the USSR may take advantage of such a situation.
Australian UFO study.
According to the summary, OSI, acting through the Robertson-Panel, encouraged the USAF to use Project Blue Book to publicly “debunk” UFOs. In a tragic twist of fate, when Australian authorities sought explanations from the US Air Force, the allegation was debunked. The authors of the study were depicted as conspiratorial and even crazy by the US Air Force. Ross Coulthart reported this, and it may be heard in a recent Project Unity interview. Courthart is an award-winning investigative journalist who is drawn to forbidden subjects. He also stated on the same podcast that a senior US Navy official identified as Nat Kobitz told him that the US had been in the midst of reverse-engineering numerous non-human craft. According to his obituary, Mr. Kobitz was a former Director of Research and Development at Naval Sea Systems Command.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
PGA Tour To End COVID Testing For Both Vaccinated & Non-Vaccinated Players
- The Facts:
The PGA Tour has announced that it will stop testing players every week, regardless of whether they have been vaccinated or not.
- Reflect On:
Are PCR tests appropriate to identify infectious people? Should people who are healthy and not sick be tested at all, anywhere?
Before you begin...
The picture you see above is of John Rahm, a professional golfer on the PGA tour being carted off the golf course after tournament officials told him he had COVID. He was healthy and had no symptoms, yet was forced to withdraw from the tournament. He was told in front of the camera’s, and a big scene was made out of the event. You would think something like that, especially when you are a big time sports figure, would be done behind closed doors with some privacy.
Earlier on in June a spokesperson for the PGA Tour said that more than 50 percent of players on the PGA tour have been vaccinated. Although it seems that the majority of players on the tour will be fully vaccinated judging by this statement, it does leave a fairly large minority who won’t be, and that’s something we’re seeing across the globe as COVID vaccine hesitancy remains high for multiple reasons.
We are pleased to announce, after consultation with PGA Tour medical advisors, that due to the high rate of vaccination among all constituents on the PGA Tour, as well as other positively trending factors across the country, testing for COVID-19 will no longer be required as a condition of competition beginning with the 3M Open. – PGA tour Senior VP Tyler Dennis
The tour recently announced that the testing of players every week will stop starting in July for both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. This was an unexpected announcement given the fact that, at least it seems in some countries, vaccinated individuals will enjoy previous rights and freedoms that everyone did before the pandemic. Travelling without need to quarantine and possibly in the future not having to be tested could be a few of those privileges. Others may include attending concerts, sporting events, or perhaps even keeping their job depending on whether or not their employer deems it to be mandatory, if that’s even legally possible. We will see what happens.
Luckily for professional golfers, regardless of their vaccination status they won’t have to worry about testing positive for COVID, especially if they’re not sick. This is the appropriate move by the PGA tour, who is represented by their players and it’s a move that the players themselves may have had a say in. It’s important because PCR tests are not designed nor are they appropriate for identifying infectious people. A number of scientists have been emphasizing this since the beginning of the pandemic. More recently, a letter to the editor published in the Journal of infection explain why more than half of al “positive” PCR tests are likely to have been people who are not infectious, otherwise known as “false positives.”
This is why the Swedish Public Health agency has a notice on their website explaining how and why polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests are not useful for determining if someone is infected with COVID or if someone can transmit it to others, and it’s better to use someone who is actually showing symptoms as a judgement call of whether or not they could be infected or free from infection.
PCR tests using a high cycle threshold are extremely sensitive. An article published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that among positive PCR samples with a cycle count over 35, only 3 percent of the samples showed viral replication. This can be interpreted as, if someone tests positive via PCR when a Ct of 35 or higher is used, the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97 percent. This begs the question, why has Manitoba, Canada, for example, using cycle thresholds of up to 45 to identify “positive” people?
When it comes to golf, the fact that spread occurring in an outdoor setting is highly unlikely could have been a factor, but it’s also important to mention that asymptomatic spread within one’s own household is also considerably rare. It really makes you wonder what’s going on here, doesn’t it?
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
New Study Questions The Safety of COVID Vaccinations & Urges Governments To Take Notice
- The Facts:
A new study published in the journal Vaccines has called into question the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.
- Reflect On:
Why are people hesitant to take the vaccine? Why are scientists and journalists who explain why hesitancy may exist censored?
Before you begin...
A new study published in the journal Vaccines by three scientists and medical professionals from Europe has raised concerns about the safety of COVID vaccines, and it’s not the first to do so. The study found that there is a “lack of clear benefit” of the vaccines and this study should be a catalyst for “governments to rethink their vaccination policy.”
The study calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) in order to prevent one death, and to do so they used a large Israeli Field study. Using the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl), the researchers were able to assess the number of cases reporting severe side effects as well as the cases with fatal side effects as a result of a COVID vaccine.
They point out the following:
The NNTV is between 200-700 to prevent on case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000 (95 % confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination. This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.
The researchers estimates suggest that we have to exchange 4 fatal and 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations in order to save the lives of 2-11 individuals per 100,000 vaccinations. This puts the risk vs. benefit of COVID vaccination on the same order of magnitude.
We need to accept that around 16 cases will develop severe adverse reactions from COVID-19 vaccines per 100,000 vaccinations delivered, and approximately four people will die from the consequences of being vaccinated per 100,000 vaccinations delivered. Adopting the point estimate of NNTV = 16,000 (95% CI, 9000–50,000) to prevent one COVID-19-related death, for every six (95% CI, 2–11) deaths prevented by vaccination, we may incur four deaths as a consequence of or associated with the vaccination. Simply put: As we prevent three deaths by vaccinating, we incur two deaths.
The study does point out that COVID-19 vaccines are effective and can, according to the publication, prevent infections, morbidity and mortality associated with COVID, but the costs must be weighted. For example, many people have been asking themselves, what are the chances I will get severely ill and die from a COVID infection?
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine recently shared that the survival rate for people under 70 years of age is about 99.95 percent. He also said that COVID is less dangerous than the flu for children. This comes based on approximately 50 studies that have been published, and information showing that more children in the U.S. have died from the flu than COVID. Here’s a meta analysis published by the WHO that gives this number. The number comes based on the idea that many more people than we have the capacity to test have most likely been infected.
How dangerous COVID is for healthy individuals has been a controversial discussion throughout this pandemic, with viewpoints differing.
Furthermore, as the study points out, one has to be mindful of a “positive” case determined by a PCR test. A PCR test cannot determine whether someone is infectious or not, and a recent study found that it’s highly likely that at least 50 percent of “positive” cases have been “false positives.”
This is the issue with testing asymptomatic healthy people, especially at a high cycle threshold. It’s the reason why many scientists and doctors have been urging government health authorities to determine cases and freedom from infections based on symptoms rather than a PCR test. You can read more in-depth about PCR testing and the issues with it here if you’re interested.
When it comes to the documented 4 deaths per 100,000 vaccinations and whether or not it’s a significant number, the researchers state,
This is difficult to say, and the answer is dependant on one’s view of how severe the pandemic is and whether the common assumption that there is hardly any innate immunological defense or cross-reactional immunity is true. Some argue that we can assume cross-reactivity of antibodies to conventional coronaviruses in 30–50% of the population [13,14,15,16]. This might explain why children and younger people are rarely afflicted by SARS-CoV2 [17,18,19].
Natural immunity is another interesting topic I’ve written in-depth about. There’s a possibility that more than a billion people have been infected, does this mean they have protection? What happens if previously infected individuals take the vaccine? What does this do to their natural immunity? The research suggesting natural immunity may last decades, or even a lifetime, is quite strong in my opinion.
There are also other health concerns that have been raised that go beyond deaths and adverse reactions as a result of the vaccine.
As the study points out,
A recent experimental study has shown that SARS-CoV2 spike protein is sufficient to produce endothelial damage. . This provides a potential causal rationale for the most serious and most frequent side effects, namely, vascular problems such as thrombotic events. The vector-based COVID-19 vaccines can produce soluble spike proteins, which multiply the potential damage sites . The spike protein also contains domains that may bind to cholinergic receptors, thereby compromising the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathways, enhancing inflammatory processes . A recent review listed several other potential side effects of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that may also emerge later than in the observation periods covered here …Given this fact and the higher number of serious side effects already reported, the current political trend to vaccinate children who are at very low risk of suffering from COVID-19 in the first place must be reconsidered.
Concerns regarding the distribution of the spike protein our cells manufacture after injection have been recently raised by Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist from the University of Guelph who recently released a detailed in depth report regarding safety concerns about the COVID vaccines.
The report was released to act as a guide for parents when it comes to deciding whether or not their child should be vaccinated against COVID-19. Bridle published the paper on behalf of one hundred other scientists and doctors who part of the Canadian COVID Care Alliance, but who are afraid to ‘come out’ publicly and share their concerns. Byram, as many others, have received a lot of criticism and have been subjected to fact checking via Facebook third party fact-checkers.
A recent article published in the British Medical Journal by journalist Laurie Clarke has highlighted the fact that Facebook has already removed at least 16 million pieces of content from its platform and added warnings to approximately 167 million others. YouTube has removed nearly 1 million videos related to, according to them, “dangerous or misleading covid-19 medical information.”
It’s also important to note that only a small fraction of side effects are even reported to adverse events databases. The authors cite multiple sources showing this, and that the median underreporting can be as high as 95 percent. This begs the question, how many deaths and adverse reactions from COVID vaccines have not been reported? Furthermore, if there are long term concerns, will deaths resulting from an adverse reaction, perhaps a year later, even be considered as connected to to the vaccine? Probably not.
This isn’t the only study to bring awareness to the lack of injuries most likely not reported. For example, an HHS pilot study conducted by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research found that 1 in every 39 vaccines in the United States caused some type of injury, which is a shocking comparison to the 1 in every million claim. It’s also unsettling that those who are injured by the COVID-19 vaccine won’t be eligible for compensation from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) while COVID is still an “emergency”, at least in the United States.
Below is the most recent data from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Keep in mind that VAERS is not without its criticism. One common criticism we’ve seen from Facebook fact-checkers, for example, is there is no proof that the vaccine was actually the cause of these events.
A few other papers have raised concerns, for example. A study published in October of 2020 in the International Journal of Clinical Practice states:
COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.
In a new research article published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, veteran immunologist J. Bart Classen expresses similar concerns and writes that “RNA-based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19.”
For decades, Classen has published papers exploring how vaccination can give rise to chronic conditions such as Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes — not right away, but three or four years down the road. In this latest paper, Classen warns that the RNA-based vaccine technology could create “new potential mechanisms” of vaccine adverse events that may take years to come to light.
There are a plethora of reasons why COVID vaccine hesitancy has been quite high. I wrote an in-depth article about this in April if you’re interested in learning about the other reasons.
Conversations like this are incredibly important in today’s climate of mass censorship. Who is right or wrong is not important, what’s important is that discussion about the vaccine and all other topics remain open and transparent. The amount of experts in the field who have been censored for sharing their views on this topic has been unprecedented. For example, in March, Harvard epidemiologist and vaccine expert Dr. Martin Kulldorff was subjected to censorship by Twitter for sharing his opinion that not everybody needed to take the COVID vaccine.
It’s good to see this recent study point out that the benefits of the vaccine, for some people, may not outweigh the potential costs.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Pfizer & Moderna Fail To Respond To British Medical Journal About COVID Vaccine Safety Concerns
An article published in the British Medical Journal by Dr. Peter Doshi titled “Covid-19 Vaccines: In The Rush for Regulatory...
New Study Finds Humans Can Access a Higher Level of Consciousness
New research has discovered verifiable evidence of a higher level of consciousness. Researchers used brain imaging equipment to analyze the small...