Showing posts with label vaccines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vaccines. Show all posts

After the first <@× scam that didn’t work, what scam is next to be mandated? Find out here.



We have turned a corner.

Vaccines are becoming a liability to investors and Big Pharma, thid is fast becoming apparent to those with their ear to the ground. However, experience has taught me that it will likely be years before the data on these ineffective and risky new "software vaccines" becomes so overwhelming that decisive action is taken.

These are of course the same Covid1984 jabs which this blog has always reported as ineffective as an inescapable consequence of a fake pandemic engineered by PCR Tests that don't work, absurd and criminally liable conflating of this means of diagnosis with rampantly indiscriminate comorbidity stats. All this must be reconciled against the crimes against humanity that governments around the world committed against their own citizens due to massive IMF loans with conditionalities such as "lockdowns" or "Curfews" or "Social Distancing" or "Travel Restrictions " or higher Hospital rebates for higher positive diagnosis and ultimately the unsafe, untested, recklessly gene persuading jabs. They ultimately failed to achieve the main objectives of Vax mandates and passports.... for now.

I have never swayed from providing this context and the inherent agendas involved with the "Flatten the curve" Psyop of 2020, the most maddening assault on sovereign states I have ever seen.

The globalist hijacking the WHO pulled on every national health ministry to hijack its public policy independence to ensure public funds are directed expressly towards making our blood the for profit playground of Big Pharma was a PR masterclass. It made the IPCC hijacking of most nations national energy policy/ Energy grid look amateurish and slow.

It's now unclear if the first one world government global taxation will be carbon tax or the automatic "vax tax" that will be a matter of public funding through VAT or income tax collections inherent as a consequence of mandating vaccines or making it illegal to refuse state medication.

Players like Bill Gates, The WEF, WHO, Klaus Schwab etc have either made their money or hijacked whatever oversight taxpayers still had over such apparatus of state. We are talking big money. These types can now, if it suits them, admit that the jabs are useless, even dangerous or that there was no basis for seizing our liberties and re-engineering our society and face no consequences or accountability.

What will they next should be your focus and you should make it EVERYONES main focus. Trust me when I tell you that, you do not want to be in the helpless situation where you know the script, know the harm people are causing themselves but cannot make them snap out of the spell because it just seems so unlikely to them that conspiracy at such a grand level is simply not possible. This is, of course, unforgivably naive in a post 9/11 society, but the way social engineering works in these psyops is by making the sceptics seem more paranoid and unhinged the louder the try to get the message out.

You should rather be subtle in the way you expose agendas BEFORE they rollout their little assaults on civil liberties using their media spin doctors. You want do that before they trample over human rights making our bodies their for profit playground because when it happens your emotions and Outrage will betray you.

...So

I will keep you posted  but do your own research,  all sources have some value,  even pure propaganda sites because motives and agendas are best worked out using such sources.

Please check out my sources pages using the drop down menu or right hand scroll bar pop up menu which you can activate by hovering over with your curser =>

Start with Bill Gates next investment, that is one of the best indicators that you can get that is still in the public domain. I am using an external article and providing a link but also hosting it because these things have a habit of being scrubbed from existence.

It appears to be softening up the public as a subtle marketing tactic though a myriad of propaganda parading as journalism sources in the latest form of below the line marketing

This article below is hosted from Fierce Pharma. 

                           Find it HERE

SK bioscience is stepping up work on a nasal spray to prevent and treat COVID-19. With the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation kicking in cash, the Korean biotech is preparing for initial process R&D for the production of the antiviral nasal spray.

The spray is designed to deliver a protein to the nasal passages. Upon delivery, the protein forms a layer to stop the virus from penetrating deeper into the body. SK thinks the spray may also disrupt the ability of the virus to replicate, giving it a potential role in the treatment of people already infected with the pathogen.

SK has transferred technology for the protein candidate from the University of Washington, where David Baker and his collaborators got the project underway in 2020 by identifying miniprotein inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2. Lauren Carter, a lead scientist at the university’s Institute for Protein Design, is continuing to work with SK on the project.

The Gates Foundation is funding the project via IAVI. Having received a Gates Foundation grant for work on an antiviral nasal spray, IAVI subcontracted work to SK, committing $2.2 million to cover early preclinical development costs.


With effective COVID-19 vaccines now widely available***, it is questionable whether there is a significant market for the nasal spray in the management of the current pandemic. However, SK sees a role for the spray as a first line of defense before vaccines or therapeutics are developed in response to a new virus.

“If we secure differentiated antiviral prevention and treatment from this research, it could be possible to quickly respond to continuously evolving respiratory viruses. Our efforts to develop new medicines to prevent and treat life threatening infectious viruses are leading to various international cooperation,” SK CEO Jae-yong Ahn said in a statement.


 ***No evidence is forthcoming 

to back up this claim 


The skyrocketing demand for unvaccinated blood


This article is behind a subscribe wall, but I'm hosting a c&p version here for convenience.

Unvaccinated Blood Is Now In Very High Demand

The current unknowns regarding ‘vaccinated blood’ are being compared with the ‘Russian roulette’ risks of HIV-tainted blood that was used for transfusions in the 1980s. And this 4-month-old has just set off a media firestorm.

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • A growing number of people in need of blood transfusions are requesting blood that comes from people who haven’t received COVID-19 shots
  • Pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole compared the current unknowns regarding “vaccinated blood” with HIV-tainted blood that was used for transfusions in the 1980s
  • Directed donations and autologous donations, or self-donation, are options for receiving blood free of mRNA, but in both cases you’ll need your doctor to submit a Red Cross Special Collections Order form
  • A “Safe Blood” donation campaign has also been formed to match blood donors and recipients who have not had COVID-19 shots

It’s unknown whether blood donated by people who’ve received mRNA COVID-19 shots poses a risk to those who receive it. A growing number of people aren’t willing to take any chances, however, and are requesting blood that comes from unvaccinated patients. One high-profile case involves a 4-month-old baby, Will Savage-Reeves, in New Zealand, who needs surgery for a heart valve disorder.

His parents, Samantha and Cole, requested the infant receive blood only from donors who have not received COVID-19 shots. While unvaccinated blood is available, the doctors and hospital refused to grant the request. The case was heard before a New Zealand court, which sided with the doctors and took guardianship of the child to proceed with the surgery using vaccinated blood.1,2

Hospital Refuses Family’s Request for Unvaccinated Blood

The outcome of baby Will’s case may serve as a harbinger of things to come. The hospital argued that the surgery should proceed using vaccinated blood because of the importance of finding a quality match. A large pool of donor blood raises the possibility of finding the highest quality match.

In addition, according to Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, another of their arguments is, “If there were a safety signal from using vaccinated blood for transfusions, it would have surfaced by now.” They also want to keep up appearances, and allowing one patient to use unvaccinated blood may open the floodgates to others requesting the same. Kirsch noted:3

“If they agree to use unvaccinated blood, it could be interpreted as an admission that vaccinated blood is not safe and could lead to everyone requesting unvaccinated blood which would then create severe blood shortages for a dubious benefit.”

Further, the New Zealand Blood Service (NZBS) manages blood donations and collections in New Zealand. Only a specialist doctor can request directed donation for the baby to received unvaccinated blood.

But, Kirsch noted, “The clinicians responsible for the surgery determined that there was insufficient evidence to make a special request … The hospital cannot compel the NZBS to do what it says, e.g., even if the doctors agreed with the parents, NZBS can still refuse to supply the blood if it doesn’t think the request is justified.”4

The hospital also claimed mRNA shots “to date remain safe.”5 According to Kirsch, “The court, lacking the legal and technical ability to second guess the doctors, therefore sided with the expert opinion of the doctors.”6

The media, meanwhile, are painting the reasonable request to honor the precautionary principle as a conspiracy theory and disinformation dreamed up by fringe “anti-vaxxers.” Case in point, The New York Times reported:7

“The case, and the family’s flawed scientific arguments, highlight the continuing dangers of online misinformation and conspiracist narratives, experts say. The dispute has ‘become a cause célèbre in the most toxic way,’ prompting a spike in hate speech on fringe platforms where conspiracy theories run rife, said Sanjana Hattotuwa, a researcher at the Disinformation Project, a New Zealand monitoring group.”

Not only did the New Zealand health service refuse the family’s request, but New Zealand’s High Court granted two doctors authority to make medical decisions regarding baby Will.8 It didn’t need to go this far, supporters have stated, since there is ready availability of blood from unvaccinated donors.9

In a similar case in Italy, however, a judge also ruled against parents who requested blood transfusions only from unvaccinated donors be used during their 2-year-old son’s heart surgery.10

Embalmers Find Unusual Clots in Veins Post-Shots

Richard Hirschman, a board-certified embalmer and funeral director with more than 20 years of experience, has come forward stating that, in the time period since COVID-19 shots were rolled out, starting around the middle of 2021, he’s been finding “strange clots” in the bodies of the deceased.

“When I do the embalming, I have to go into the vein. And in order for the embalming process, I have to allow blood to be drained. So I actually pulled this huge, long clot — fibrous looking clot — out prior to an embalming,” Hirschman said.11

The beginning of the clot, which resembles a white, rubbery worm, appears red and like a normal clot. But the majority of the clot is different: It’s composed of a white, fibrous material. “It just isn’t normal,” he said, adding:12

“Typically, a blood clot is smooth; it’s blood that has coagulated together. But when you squeeze it, or touch it or try to pick it up, it generally falls apart … you can almost squeeze it between your fingers and get it back to blood again. But this white fibrous stuff is pretty strong. It’s not weak at all. You can manipulate it, it’s very pliable. It’s not hard … it is not normal. I don’t know how anybody can live with something like this inside of them.”

What’s important to note is embalmers have reported finding unusual clots not only in deceased people who’ve received the shots but also in those who have had a blood transfusion. So while we don’t know what risk there is from receiving blood from someone who’s had COVID-19 shots, “the risk is not zero,” Kirsch said.13

Another case involves a baby, Alexander, who received a vaccinated blood transfusion and developed “an enormous clot that eventually stretched from his left knee, all the way to his heart,” and died.14 According to Kirsch, the hospital then went on to delete all related medical records:15

“Sacred Heart Hospital in Washington State has erased all records of the death of baby Alex who died from a blood clot after receiving a transfusion from a vaccinated patient. So there is no evidence of a problem anymore. They erased it, just like the CDC erased all data linking vaccines and autism. This is how science works nowadays.”

Is the Blood Supply Safe? Nobody Knows

In the U.S., a person is in need of blood every two seconds.16 If you have a medical emergency, getting a blood transfusion can be life-saving. But should patients have the option of choosing to receive blood that hasn’t been exposed to mRNA COVID-19 shots?

The Red Cross states they’re following the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s blood donation eligibility guidance, which states, “In most cases, there is no deferral time for individuals who received a COVID-19 vaccine as long as they are symptom-free and feeling well at the time of donation.”17

“While the antibodies that are produced by the stimulated immune system in response to vaccination are found throughout the bloodstream, the actual vaccine components are not,” Jessa Merrill, Red Cross director of biomedical communications, told The Daily Beast.18 Further, after speaking to Dr. Peter McCullough, cardiologist, internist and epidemiologist, Kirsch reported:19

“He said he’d take the vaccinated blood because of the critical nature of the matching process. With donor blood, the match quality would not be as good because there is a smaller pool to draw from, and it’s not just blood type that is matched.

Nobody has quantified the risk of using vaccinated blood. He said if the risk were high, it would have been noticed by now (I’m not sure I agree with that; there is a lot of willful blindness for anything associated with the vaccine).”

Many Contracted AIDS Via Tainted Blood Transfusions

Pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole compared the current unknowns regarding “vaccinated blood” with HIV-tainted blood that was used for transfusions in the 1980s:20

“We don’t know. Nobody knows. I have clots from unvaccinated deceased that were transfused and formed large clots post transfusion and died. No blood bank is checking. ‘One cannot find, that for which they do not look.’ This is akin to blood banks and hemophiliacs and HIV in the 1980s. It may not be a problem.

However, it may be. There are assays academically available to check for circulating spike protein. It is criminal negligence to not assure the safety of the blood supply based on bureaucratic declarations without scientific explorations.”

Similarly, in January 1983, after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed evidence strongly suggesting blood and blood products transmitted AIDS and the disease was sexually transmitted, it recommended blood banks directly question donors about their sexual behavior and run blood donations through a series of screening tests.21

The blood bank community issued a statement soon after, stating “direct or indirect questions about a donor’s sexual preference are inappropriate” and not recommending any laboratory screening tests.22 As noted by Encyclopedia.com:23

“In fact, in the early years of the disease, many of the people who contracted AIDS were infected through blood transfusions. Because it took more than five years to develop a test to check for AIDS in blood before it was used in a transfusion, many people got the disease in hospitals.

The AIDS epidemic continued to grow in Africa and Asia during the 1990s and even in the early 21st century because many nations were slow to adopt blood testing.”

In the 1980s, increasing fears over tainted transfusions led many people to say they’d refuse donated blood entirely. One man, whose wife died of AIDS contracted through a contaminated transfusion, told the AP in 1985, “You want to play Russian Roulette? Even if it were an emergency — and I had some say in the matter — I wouldn’t take blood out of the pool.”24

Now, decades later, doctors are hearing similar concerns from patients regarding vaccinated blood. Dr. Davinder Sidhu, the division head for transfusion and transplant medicine for southern Alberta, Canada, told CTV News he gets requests for blood from unvaccinated donors “at least once or twice a month over the last several months.”25

Is it Your Right to Receive ‘Unvaccinated’ Blood?

As it stands, blood donation centers may ask about vaccines their donors have received,26 but it’s not guaranteed that this information will be passed on to consumers. The Red Cross also states, “If you’ve received a COVID-19 vaccine, you’ll need to provide the manufacturer name when you come to donate.”27

Still, it’s unlikely that most hospitals will readily divulge this information when it comes to receiving a blood transfusion. So what are your options if you’re looking for blood from a donor that’s hasn’t received a COVID-19 shot? Directed donations, in which a donor donates blood for a specified receiver, are an option, but they’re typically only used in cases where matched blood is unavailable due to extremely rare blood types.28

Autologous donations, or self-donation, is another option, in which you donate blood for your own use, such as before a medical procedure like surgery. In both cases, you’ll need your doctor to submit a Red Cross Special Collections Order form to complete an autologous or directed blood donation.29

A “Safe Blood” donation campaign has also been formed to match blood donors and recipients who have not had COVID-19 shots. For now, they’re acting as a resource to match donors with those in need of blood, but the hope is that an mRNA-free blood bank will be established:30

“There is no blood bank with mRNA-free blood yet, not even with us. And, although we have already asked hundreds of clinics, at the moment — at least in Europe — all of them still refuse to allow the human right of free blood choice with them — or at least do not want to be mentioned, because otherwise they fear reprisals. However, we promise you that we will not give up until we can offer a worldwide network of such clinics.”

As for baby Will, whose parents’ hopes for an mRNA-free blood transfusion have been dashed, Kirsch said:31

“Whatever happened to the precautionary principle of medicine? In my opinion, this isn’t a close call. We can’t know today if the blood supply is safe because nobody wants to even ask the question and do the experiments required to answer it. For that reason, Baby Will’s parents’ request to use unvaccinated blood should be respected.”

 Sources and References

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.

Dr. Joseph Mercola is the founder of Mercola.com. An osteopathic physician, best-selling author, and recipient of multiple awards in the field of natural health, his primary vision is to change the modern health paradigm by providing people with valuable resources. 

Labels

Search This Blog

Your Feedback

Name

Email *

Message *