Robert Kennedy Needs Our Help; Calls To Halt Vaccine; Tony Blair Calls for Multiple Shots; U.S Funded Bio Labs; Pfizer CEO Refuses to Answer Questions and More. 

ROBERT KENNEDY – I need your help. Watching from the side is already becoming risky for all of us, I do not allow this anymore. Great injustices are happening before my eyes. Share this with everyone you know! Everyone needs to hear what I have to say.



War criminal and globalist Tony Blair talking about digital surveillance for the unvaccinated and talks about “multiple shots down the line”


Footage from within a  in a recently liberated city in the Donbas. This is clear evidence of western multinational big pharma conducting inhumane experiments which are crimes against humanity and also highlights why the west is throwing billions at the Kiev regime.


Kari Lake continues the fight again election fraud. The election fraud is for all to see. Now we will see how corrupt the justice system is. Time to wake up


Pfizer CEO refuses to answer questions.


China has self destruct helmet for their soldiers.


The west likes to claim Russia is a totalitarian dictatorship when in fact it is the west that suppresses free speech.


US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin says the US will support Ukraine “for as long as it takes.”  Top DOD officials are part of the swamp and it is time to for the people to wake up.


The Maniacal  push for a new world order by Laura Ingraham

Clots in the Body; The Khazarian Mafia; DOD Documents revealed; Rebel News  

Clots and Fetal demises

Khazarian Mafia

Political Theater and we were the guinea pigs. DOD Documents reveal the truth.

Rebel News

Bill Gates ‘Force Jab’ the Unvaxxed; The Parents Are The Biggest Force; Criminal Cartel In the Whitehouse; Biden Classified Documents 

Bill Gates Vows To Pump mRNA Into Food Supply To ‘Force-Jab’ the Unvaccinated

The Mask Distraction. Parents are the biggest force.

Criminal Cartel In the Whitehouse

Biden Classified Documents

Lara Logan; Corruption in the Pentagon; Global Elites Fund Abortion; Climate Change; Elites Want Unvaccinated Pilots , Swamp Being Revealed and More

Lara Logan on Ukraine and more


Document surfaces confirming the the Pentagon was in fact controlling the Covid narrative all along and the agenda predates 2019.

How the global elites fund abortion around the world.

Truth About Climate Change

Proposed Tax Change

Klaus Schwab and the WEF is  the Threat to the world

Gates and Schwab want Unvaccinated Pilots to fly their private Jets

More Biden and Government Corruption

The Swamp being revealed

J6 Political Prisoner; And We Know; Save The Children; The Higher View

Coming up on this episode of Alison at Large: A one-on-one with J6 political prisoner Jake Lang. We will remember the infamous day and discuss the new book he has released behind bars. Plus a shocking ruling out of new Zealand… Regarding pedophilia. And “to censor or not to censor”… That is the question… And Elon Musk’s latest maneuver may shock you. And B.M.W. introduces you to a car with a ‘digital soul.’

Jake Lang J6 Political Prisoner, “To censor or not to censor” and Cars with “Souls”

Why hasn’t Ray Ebbs Been Arrested?


And We Know

1.7.23: Trump in CONTROL, DS losing their grip, Huge WIN, Art of the DEAL playing out. PRAY!

Save The Children

The Higher View

The Higher View is a brand-new show using The View as a format. If you are a fan or not a fan of The View which has been on for 25 years. We have taken the show format to a Higher Consciousness perspective. Our first show aired live yesterday. Please check it out and share. It is time that Humanity moves to a Higher Consciousness together. Awake 2 Oneness Radio: https://www.awake2onenessradio.org/


Truth On MSM

And We Know; Deep State is in a Panic

The WAKE UP just getting STARTED, Enough already, Space FORCE takes COMMS

The [DS] Plans Are Falling Apart, Corrupt Politicians Begin To Exit, Panic In DC

Election Update From Arizona and US Supreme Court Case 22-380, the Could Remove Members of Congress. See full list below


Some Questions and Answers in the Kari Lake Lawsuit
Kari Lake Closing arguments

‘Without a Shadow of a Doubt’: Kari Lake Responds After 2-Day Election Fraud Trial Ends

By Jack Phillips
December 23, 2022 Updated: December 23, 2022

Arizona GOP candidate Kari Lake released a statement Thursday saying that her lawyers proved that there was “malicious intent” that caused disruption during Maricopa County’s Nov. 8 election, although lawyers for Arizona’s Secretary of State office and Maricopa County argued that she didn’t offer any evidence of alleged fraud or misconduct.

Abha Khanna, a lawyer representing Hobbs, told the courtroom in Maricopa County that Lake’s attorneys have not established whether printer problems on Election Day were intentional acts that would have changed the race’s outcome had they not occurred. At the trial’s closing arguments Thursday, Khanna said Lake’s claims were based on hearsay, speculation, and theatrics.

“What we got instead was just loose threads and gaping plot holes. We know now that her story was a work of fiction,” Khanna said.

But Kurt Olsen, one of Lake’s attorneys, said officials tried to downplay the effects of the printer problems in Maricopa County. On Nov. 8, County Supervisor Bill Gates and Recorder Stephen Richer announced during a news conference that there were printer errors at dozens of polling locations countywide, telling voters to either drop their ballots inside drop-boxes or go to another polling location.

“This is about trust, your honor,” Olsen said. “It’s about restoring people’s trust. There is not a person that’s watching this thing that isn’t shaking their head now.”

Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson, an appointee of former Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, did not say when he would issue a ruling on the case.

Following the two-day trial, Lake told reporters that she believes her attorneys presented a case that would potentially change the outcome of the election. A lawsuit Lake filed earlier this month called for either a redo of the election in Maricopa County or to declare her the victor over Hobbs, a Democrat.

‘Without a Shadow of a Doubt’

“We provided expert testimony. We provided experts. The other side brought in activists to try to save face. They admitted that they’ve known about these ballot problems. They’re ballot problems,” Lake said.

Her lawyers “proved without a shadow of a doubt that there was malicious intent that caused disruption so great it changed the results of the election,” Lake said, adding, “We demand fair, honest, transparent elections, and we will get them. And I pray so hard for this judge.”

At one point during the trial, Lake’s attorneys pointed to a witness who examined ballots on behalf of her campaign and discovered 14 ballots that had 19-inch images of the ballot printed on 20-inch paper, meaning the ballots wouldn’t be read by a tabulator. The witness claimed someone changed those printer configurations, although election officials disputed those assertions.

Lake also called on pollster Richard Baris, who told the court that he believes technical problems at polling places had disenfranchised enough voters that it would have changed the outcome of the race in Lake’s favor. Baris noted that Election Day voters in Maricopa mostly trended Republican.

Baris stated that 25,000 to 40,000 people who would normally have voted actually didn’t cast ballots as a result of Election Day problems, saying that his estimate was primarily influenced by the number of people who started answering his exit poll but didn’t finish the process.

“The bottom line here is that those who said they would cast their vote by mail or drop their ballot off by mail completed their questionnaire at a 93 percent rate,” Baris said, adding that “the rate for Election Day voters was only 72 percent. I can tell you that has never happened to me before, ever.”

Kenneth Mayer, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who is not a pollster involved in the race, claimed that Baris was engaging in making “assumptions and speculation.”

Earlier in the week, Thompson allowed Lake’s case to go to trial but dismissed eight out of 10 claims brought by Lake’s team. The judge ruled that the dismissed charges didn’t meet the criteria to bring election challenges under Arizona law.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Jack Phillips

BREAKING NEWS REPORTER

Jack Phillips is a senior reporter for The Epoch Times based in New York. He covers breaking news.


The Roberts Court, 2022

Front row, left to right — Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Elena Kagan.

Back row — Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Supreme Court Considers Taking Brunson v. Adams Case That Seeks to Overturn 2020 Election

CROSSROADS

JOSHUA PHILIPP

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether it will take up a case that could overturn the 2020 elections and make representatives who voted to confirm the election ineligible to hold office in the future. The case, Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al, sues the members of Congress who voted against the proposed 10-day audit of the 2020 elections, alleging that doing so and then certifying the election regardless was a breach of their oath of office.

If the Supreme Court rules against Congress, it could potentially remove a sitting president and vice president, along with the members of Congress involved, and deem them unfit to hold office again at any level of U.S. government. It would allegedly also give the Supreme Court the ability to authorize the swearing-in of the rightful president and vice president.  Link 

Case explained in the video below  and the Justices will have a conference on January 6.

To review Case #22-380 click the link below

Click to access 20221027152243533_20221027-152110-95757954-00007015.pdf

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
A serious conflict exists between decisions rendered from
this Court and lower appeal courts, along with
constitutional provisions and statutes, in deciding whether
or not the trial court has jurisdiction to try the merits of
this case.

This case uncovers a serious national security breach that
is unique and is of first impression, and due to the serious
nature of this case it involves the possible removal of a
sitting President and Vice President of the United States
along with members of the United States Congress, while
deeming them unfit from ever holding office under Federal,
State, County or local Governments found within the
United States of America, and at the same time the trial
court also has the authority, to be validated by this Court,
to authorize the swearing in of the legal and rightful heirs
for President and Vice President of the United States.

In addition there are two doctrines that conflict with each
other found in this case affecting every court in this
country. These doctrines are known as the doctrine of
equitable maxim and the doctrine of the object principle of
justice. Equitable maxim created by this court, which the
lower court used to dismiss this case, sets in direct violation
of the object principle of justice also partially created by
this Court and supported by other appeal courts and
constitutional provisions.

These conflicts call for the supervisory power of this Court
to resolve these conflicts, which has not, but should be,
settled by this Court without delay.

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
Petitioner Raland J Brunson is an individual representing
himself and is a Plaintiff in the trial court.
The following 388 Respondents are a party to this action as
defendants in the trial court:

Named persons in their capacities as United States House
Representatives: ALMA S. ADAMS; PETE AGUILAR;
COLIN Z. ALLRED; MARK E. AMODEI; KELLY
ARMSTRONG; JAKE AUCHINCLOSS; CYNTHIA AXNE;
DON BACON; TROY BALDERSON; ANDY BARR;
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN; KAREN BASS; JOYCE
BEATTY; AMI BERA; DONALD S. BEYER JR.; GUS M.
ILIRAKIS; SANFORD D. BISHOP JR.; EARL
BLUMENAUER; LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER; SUZANNE
BONAMICI; CAROLYN BOURDEAUX; JAMAAL
BOWMAN; BRENDAN F. BOYLE; KEVIN BRADY;
ANTHONY G. BROWN; JULIA BROWNLEY; VERN
BUCHANAN; KEN BUCK; LARRY BUCSHON; CORI
BUSH; CHERI BUSTOS; G. K. BUTTERFIELD; SALUD
0. CARBAJAL; TONY CARDENAS; ANDRE CARSON;
MATT CARTWRIGHT; ED CASE; SEAN CASTEN;
KATHY CASTOR; JOAQUIN CASTRO; LIZ CHENEY;
JUDY CHU; DAVID N. CICILLINE; KATHERINE M.
CLARK; YVETTE D. CLARKE; EMANUEL CLEAVER;
JAMES E. CLYBURN; STEVE COHEN; JAMES COMER;
GERALD E. CONNOLLY; JIM COOPER; J. LUIS
CORREA; JIM COSTA; JOE COURTNEY; ANGIE CRAIG;
DAN CRENSHAW; CHARLIE CRIST; JASON CROW;
HENRY CUELLAR; JOHN R. CURTIS; SHARICE
DAVIDS; DANNY K. DAVIS; RODNEY DAVIS;
MADELEINE DEAN; PETER A. DEFAZIO; DIANA
DEGETTE; ROSAL DELAURO; SUZAN K. DELBENE;
ANTONIO DELGADO; VAL BUTLER DEMINGS; MARK
DESAULNIER; THEODORE E. DEUTCH; DEBBIE
DINGELL; LLOYD DOGGETT; MICHAEL F. DOYLE;
TOM EMMER; VERONICA ESCOBAR; ANNA G. ESHOO;
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT; DWIGHT EVANS; RANDY
FEENSTRA; A. DREW FERGUSON IV; BRIAN K.
FITZPATRICK; LIZZIE LETCHER; JEFF
FORTENBERRY; BILL FOSTER; LOIS FRANKEL;
MARCIA L. FUDGE; MIKE GALLAGHER; RUBEN
GALLEGO; JOHN GARAMENDI; ANDREW R.
GARBARINO; SYLVIA R. GARCIA; JESUS G. GARCIA;
JARED F. GOLDEN; JIMMY GOMEZ; TONY GONZALES;
ANTHONY GONZALEZ; VICENTE GONZALEZ; JOSH
GOTTHEIMER; KAY GRANGER; AL GREEN; RAUL M.
GRIJALVA; GLENN GROTHMAN; BRETT GUTHRIE;
DEBRA A. HAALAND; JOSH HARDER; ALCEE L.
HASTINGS; JAHANA HAYES; JAIME HERRERA
BEUTLER; BRIAN HIGGINS; J. FRENCH HILL; JAMES
A. HIMES; ASHLEY HINSON; TREY HOLLINGSWORTH;
STEVEN HORSFORD; CHRISSY HOULAHAN; STENY H.
HOYER; JARED HUFFMAN; BILL HUIZENGA; SHEILA
JACKSON LEE; SARA JACOBS; PRAMILA JAYAPAL;
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES; DUSTY JOHNSON; EDDIE
BERNICE JOHNSON; HENRY C. JOHNSON JR.;
MONDAIRE JONES; DAVID P. JOYCE; KAIALPI
KAHELE; MARCY KAPTUR; JOHN KATKO; WILLIAM R.
KEATING; RO KHANNA; DANIEL T. KILDEE; DEREK
KILMER; ANDY KIM; YOUNG KIM; RON KIND; ADAM
KINZINGER; ANN KIRKPATRICK; RAJA
KRISHNAMOORTHI; ANN M. KUSTER; DARIN
LAHOOD; CONOR LAMB; JAMES R. LANGEVIN; RICK
LARSEN; JOHN B. LARSON; ROBERT E. LATTA; JAKE
LATURNER; BRENDA L. LAWRENCE; AL LAWSON JR.;
BARBARA LEE; SUSIE LEE; TERESA LEGER
FERNANDEZ; ANDY LEVIN; MIKE LEVIN; TED LIEU;
ZOE LOFGREN; ALAN S.LOWENTHAL; ELAINE G.
LURIA; STEPHEN F. LYNCH; NANCY MACE; TOM
MALINOWSKI; CAROLYN B. MALONEY; SEAN
PATRICK MALONEY; KATHY E. MANNING; THOMAS
MASSIE; DORIS 0. MATSUI; LUCY MCBATH; MICHAEL
T. MCCAUL; TOM MCCLINTOCK; BETTY MCCOLLUM;
A. ADONALD MCEACHIN; JAMES P. MCGOVERN;
PATRICK T. MCHENRY; DAVID B. MCKINLEY; JERRY
MCNERNEY; GREGORY W. MEEKS; PETER MEIJER;
GRACE MENG; KWEISI MFUME; MARIANNETTE
MILLER-MEEKS; JOHN R. MOOLENAAR; BLAKE D.
MOORE; GWEN MOORE; JOSEPH D. MORELLE;
SETH MOULTON; FRANK J. MRVAN; STEPHANIE N.
MURPHY; JERROLD NADLER; GRACE F.
NAPOLITANO; RICHARD E. NEAL; JOE NEGUSE; DAN
NEWHOUSE; MARIE NEWMAN; DONALD NORCROSS;
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ; TOM O’HALLERAN;
ILHAN OMAR; FRANK PALLONE JR.; JIMMY
PANETTA; CHRIS PAPPAS; BILL PASCRELL JR.;
DONALD M. PAYNE JR.; NANCY PELOSI; ED
PERLMUTTER; SCOTT H. PETERS; DEAN PHILLIPS;
CHELLIE PINGREE; MARK POCAN; KATIE PORTER;
AYANNA PRESSLEY; DAVID E. PRICE; MIKE
QUIGLEY; JAMIE RASKIN; TOM REED; KATHLEEN M.
RICE; CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS; DEBORAH K.
ROSS; CHIP ROY; LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD; RAUL
RUIZ; C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER; BOBBY L.
RUSH; TIM RYAN; LINDA T. SANCHEZ; JOHN P.
SARBANES; MARY GAY SCANLON; JANICE D.
SCHAKOWSKY; ADAM B. SCHIFF; BRADLEY SCOTT
SCHNEIDER; KURT SCHRADER; KIM SCHRIER;
AUSTIN SCOTT; DAVID SCOTT; ROBERT C. SCOTT;
TERRI A. SEWELL; BRAD SHERMAN; MIKIE
SHERRILL; MICHAEL K. SIMPSON; ALBIO SIRES;
ELISSA SLOTKIN; ADAM SMITH; CHRISTOPHER H.
SMITH; DARREN SOTO; ABIGAIL DAVIS
SPANBERGER; VICTORIA SPARTZ; JACKIE SPEIER;
GREG STANTON; PETE STAUBER; MICHELLE STEEL;
BRYAN STEIL; HALEY M. STEVENS; STEVE STIVERS;
MARILYN STRICKLAND; THOMAS R. SUOZZI; ERIC
SWALWELL; MARK TAKANO; VAN TAYLOR; BENNIE
G. THOMPSON; MIKE THOMPSON; DINA TITUS;
RASHIDA TLAIB; PAUL TONKO; NORMA J. TORRES;
RITCHIE TORRES; LORI TRAHAN; DAVID J. TRONE;
MICHAEL R. TURNER; LAUREN UNDERWOOD; FRED
UPTON; JUAN VARGAS; MARC A. VEASEY; FILEMON
VELA; NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ; ANN WAGNER;
MICHAEL WALTZ; DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ;
MAXINE WATERS; BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN;
PETER WELCH; BRAD R. WENSTRUP; BRUCE
WESTERMAN; JENNIFER WEXTON; SUSAN WILD;
NIKEMA WILLIAMS; FREDERICA S. WILSON; STEVE
WOMACK; JOHN A. YARMUTH; DON YOUNG; the
following persons named are for their capacities as U.S.
Senators; TAMMY BALDWIN; JOHN BARRASSO;
MICHAEL F. BENNET; MARSHA BLACKBURN;
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL; ROY BLUNT; CORY A.
BOOKER; JOHN BOOZMAN; MIKE BRAUN; SHERROD
BROWN; RICHARD BURR; MARIA CANTWELL;
SHELLEY CAPITO; BENJAMIN L. CARDIN; THOMAS R.
CARPER; ROBERT P. CASEY JR.; BILL CASSIDY;
SUSAN M. COLLINS; CHRISTOPHER A. COONS; JOHN
CORNYN; CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO; TOM
COTTON; KEVIN CRAMER; MIKE CRAPO; STEVE
DAINES; TAMMY DUCKWORTH; RICHARD J. DURBIN;
JONI ERNST; DIANNE FEINSTEIN; DEB FISCHER;
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND; LINDSEY GRAHAM; CHUCK
GRASSLEY; BILL HAGERTY; MAGGIE HASSAN;
MARTIN HEINRICH; JOHN HICKENLOOPER; MAZIE
HIRONO; JOHN HOEVEN; JAMES INHOFE; RON
JOHNSON; TIM KAINE; MARK KELLY; ANGUS S.
KING, JR.; AMY KLOBUCHAR; JAMES LANKFORD;
PATRICK LEAHY; MIKE LEE; BEN LUJAN; CYNTHIA
M. LUMMIS; JOE MANCHIN III; EDWARD J. MARKEY;
MITCH MCCONNELL; ROBERT MENENDEZ; JEFF
MERKLEY; JERRY MORAN; LISA MURKOWSKI;
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY; PATTY MURRAY; JON
OSSOFF; ALEX PADILLA; RAND PAUL; GARY C.
PETERS; ROB PORTMAN; JACK REED; JAMES E.
RISCH; MITT ROMNEY; JACKY ROSEN; MIKE
ROUNDS; MARCO RUBIO; BERNARD SANDERS; BEN
SASSE; BRIAN SCHATZ; CHARLES E. SCHUMER; RICK
SCOTT; TIM SCOTT; JEANNE SHAHEEN; RICHARD C.
SHELBY; KYRSTEN SINEMA; TINA SMITH;
DEBBIE STABENOW; DAN SULLIVAN; JON TESTER;
JOHN THUNE; THOM TILLIS; PATRICK J. TOOMEY;
HOLLEN VAN; MARK R. WARNER; RAPHAEL G.
WARNOCK; ELIZABETH WARREN; SHELDON
WHITEHOUSE; ROGER F. WICKER; RON WYDEN;
TODD YOUNG; JOSEPH ROBINETTE BIDEN JR in his
capacity of President of the United States; MICHAEL
RICHARD PENCE in his capacity as former Vice President
of the United States, and KAMALA HARRIS in her
capacity as Vice President of the United States and JOHN
and JANE DOES 1-100.

Write to the Justices clicking this link and get the following letter

MAILED TO:

Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Attn:
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Associate Justice Elena Kagan.
Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch
Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh
Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

RE: Brunson v. Alma S. Adams et al No.: 22-380

Dear Justices,

This letter is to express my support of the above referenced case. I am concerned that the United States has experienced a national security breach and a violation of every citizens’ greatest power in a Republic: voting. I ask that you stand against the interference of foreign and domestic enemies and uphold the supreme law of the land by granting this petition. You truly are in a position that represents a court system greater than the world has ever seen.

I, along with many others, seem to be witnessing our nation captured and I am left to wonder if it might be by some of these very respondents. I pray for the right and just outcome and I am grateful for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Name:_______________________________________ Date:_______________________

NWO Agenda is to Create Mass Infertility Around the World; Vaccinated at Higher Risk of COVID-19 Infection: Studies; The Video Hillary Clinton Does Not  Want You to See; Davos Elite Reveal Orwellian Plan to Decode Your Brain 

Part of the satanic NWO agenda is to create mass infertility around the world which in part has been achieved thanks to the Covid vaccines, GMO’s, fluoridated water and microplastics.

This company EctoLife is helping accelerate the transhumanist agenda by creating artificial womb pods which is promoted through the WEF and other NGO’s under the guise of sustainability and depopulation

That Artificial Womb Video Isn’t Real, But Scientists Say It Could Be

Vaccinated at Higher Risk of COVID-19 Infection: Studies

Dec 21 2022

People who have received COVID-19 vaccines are more likely to get infected than those who are unvaccinated, according to two new studies.

In one paper (pdf), from Cleveland Clinic researchers, each successive dose heightened the incidence of infection. The lowest incidence was among the unvaccinated.

In the other study, researchers in Indiana found that vaccinated people had a higher incidence of infection when compared to unvaccinated people who have natural immunity, or protection from surviving an initial infection.

The studies are the latest to find low or even negative effectiveness against infection among the vaccinated. A growing number of experts are pointing to immune imprinting, or suggesting it could be a cause. The term refers to how an immune system can be locked in by exposure to an early version of a virus, thus hindering its response to mutated versions. The COVID-19 vaccines target only the original virus strain apart from the updated boosters, which target both that strain and the BA.4/BA.5 subvariants of the Omicron variant.

Old vaccines “may have trained the immune response to expect a specific narrow pre-omicron challenge; thus, the response was inferior when the actual challenge was an immune-evasive omicron subvariant,” Qatari researchers wrote in a recent paper (pdf), which found a booster dose lowered the protection against infection.

Cleveland Clinic Paper

In their paper, a preprint published by medRxiv, Cleveland Clinic researchers analyzed data from clinic employees to arrive at estimates of vaccine effectiveness. The retrospective cohort study looked at data from Sept. 12, when the new boosters became available, through Dec. 12.

Researchers not only found the updated vaccines provide poor protection, but the “unexpected” result that people who received more doses of either version of the shots had an increased risk of infection.

“A simplistic explanation might be that those who received more doses were more likely to be individuals at higher risk of COVID-19. A small proportion of individuals may have fit this description. However, the majority of subjects in this study were generally young individuals and all were eligible to have received at least 3 doses of vaccine by the study start date, and which they had every opportunity to do,” wrote the researchers, including Dr. Nabin Shrestha.

“Therefore, those who received fewer than 3 doses (>45% of individuals in the study) were not those ineligible to receive the vaccine, but those who chose not to follow the CDC’s recommendations on remaining updated with COVID-19 vaccination, and one could reasonably expect these individuals to have been more likely to have exhibited higher risk-taking behavior. Despite this, their risk of acquiring COVID-19 was lower than those who received a larger number of prior vaccine doses.”

The researchers noted that multiple other studies, including the Qatari paper, have offered similar results.

“We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19 vaccination, and in addition to a vaccine’s effectiveness it is important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed,” they said.

Researchers did not look at the effectiveness against severe illness or hospitalization.

No funding sources for the study were listed. Under “funding,” researchers listed, “none.”

“It’s important to note that the study was done in a younger, relatively healthy, healthcare employee population. It included no children, very few elderly individuals and likely few immunocompromised individuals. Therefore, we urge caution in generalizing the findings to the public, which can include different populations than was in this study,” a spokesperson for the clinic told The Epoch Times via email.

“The study found that the longer it has been since last exposure to the virus by infection or vaccination, the higher the risk of acquiring COVID-19. It also found that the higher the number of vaccine doses an individual previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19. It is unclear at this time why this was observed and how it should be interpreted, and more research is needed to either confirm or refute this finding. It’s important to note that this paper has not yet been peer reviewed.”

Epoch Times Photo
Colorized scanning electron micrograph of a cell (purple) infected with a variant strain of SARS-CoV-2 virus particles (pink), isolated from a patient sample. (NIAID via The Epoch Times)

Indiana Paper

The Indiana researchers, including Dr. Shaun Grannis of the Regenstrief Institute, combed statewide testing and vaccination data as well as medical records to match individuals to compare incidence of infection, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and deaths. The observational study, which only included people aged 12 and older with at least one previously recorded health care encounter with the Indiana Network for Patient Care between Jan. 1, 2016, and early 2022, crunched data from between Nov. 29, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2022.

The researchers estimated the incidence of COVID-19 was higher among the vaccinated when compared with the unvaccinated but naturally immune. Six months after the index date—30 days after an initial infection or 30 days after a vaccination—the cumulative infection rate was 6.7 percent among the vaccinated and just 2.9 percent among the previously infected. The rate remained higher among the vaccinated in all age groups when the results were stratified by age. 

“Interestingly, at least in the study population and at [the] time of this analysis, natural immunity appears more effective in preventing new infections, a finding that is also reported in an earlier observational study,” the researchers said, pointing to an April paper from Israeli researchers. They theorized that vaccinated people may be more likely to get tested for COVID-19, which would lead to vaccine effectiveness being underestimated.

The study also concluded that the vaccinated were better protected than the naturally immune against emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and mortality.

“The findings highlight the real-world benefits of vaccination and allude to the health consequences of SARS-CoV-2 after the initial exposure,” Grannis and his co-authors wrote.

The paper was published by the American Journal of Public Health, which is the publication of the American Public Health Association. No funding sources were listed.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated with a comment from the Cleveland Clinic.

Zachary Stieber

Zachary Stieber is a senior reporter for The Epoch Times based in Maryland. He covers U.S. and world news.

The Video Hillary Clinton Does Not  Want You to See
 DAVOS ELITE REVEAL ORWELLIAN PLAN TO DECODE YOUR BRAIN & READ YOUR MIND

Davos Elite Reveal Orwellian Plan to Decode Your Brain

 

Board of Michigan Canvassers, the Election was Rigged; White House Can’t Mandate COVID Jabs for Federal Contractors: Appeals Court; Elon Musk to Appoint Donald Trump Jr. as New Twitter CEO After Stepping Down

White House Can’t Mandate COVID Jabs for Federal Contractors: Appeals Court

By Caden Pearson December 20, 2022 Updated: December 20, 2022

 

A federal appeals court on Monday struck down a White House rule requiring anyone employed by a federal contractor to be vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition of government contracts.

A three-panel judge of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to affirm a lower court judgment that barred President Joe Biden’s September 2021 executive order in three states after Louisiana, Indiana, and Mississippi sued to challenge the rule.

These three states sued the Biden administration in the Western District of Louisiana in their capacities as federal contractors themselves, winning an injunction and stay by the district court.

In upholding the lower court finding, Judge Kurt Engelhardt, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, said in his majority opinion (pdf) that a broad interpretation of the law could have given Biden “nearly unlimited authority to introduce requirements into federal contracts.”

He illustrated his point by saying that Biden could “hypothetically” mandate that all third-party federal contractors’ employees reduce their BMI (body mass index) below a certain number based “on the theory that obesity is a primary contributor to unhealthiness and absenteeism.”

Epoch Times Photo
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita speaks in Schererville, Ind., on Nov. 8, 2022. (Darron Cummings/AP Photo)

The U.S. government has contracts with hundreds of third-party contractors, and judges have indicated that the issue might affect up to 20 percent of American employees.

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita touted the ruling as a legal victory against what he called President Joe Biden’s executive overreach.

Rokita, who joined with two other plaintiff states in the legal action, decried Biden’s “truly unprecedented” use of the federal Procurement Act to wield executive power to impose the mandate on third-party contractors.

“Hoosiers and all Americans should have the liberty to make their own decisions on whether to get vaccinated,” Rokita said in a statement. “That includes individuals who happen to work as federal contractors. No one should have to fear losing their jobs just because they opt against getting a shot.”

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry called the appeals court’s decision a “victory for freedom.”

“We will continue to stand up against these abuses of power that threaten us now and in the future,” he said in a statement.

Epoch Times Photo
Syringes with COVID-19 vaccines in Berlin, Germany, on Feb. 28, 2022. (Carsten Koall/Getty Images)

‘Intrusive Command’

The Department of Justice (DOJ) defended the mandate in a court filing, saying Biden’s executive order, issued on Sept. 9, 2021, was justified under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, known as the Procurement Act.

The DOJ had argued in an earlier court filing that “requiring entities that enter into federal contracts to have a vaccinated workforce enhances the efficiency of federal contractor operations,” per the Procurement Act.

Engelhardt said that if Biden had issued an alternative but similar executive order targeting tobacco—mandating that workers refrain from smoking or being in the presence of smoking—it would “undoubtedly strike reasonable minds as too great a stretch under the Procurement Act.”

“No such provision exists in the Procurement Act to justify this intrusive command,” the judge wrote. “The pandemic, challenging as it has been for the President, the legislature, the courts, and especially the populace, does not justify such an enormous and transformative expansion of presidential authority.”

The lower court originally found that the states had Article III standing as they faced a choice between complying with the mandate and potentially losing employees or becoming ineligible to bid on or renew federal contracts.

The district court found that Biden’s mandate fell afoul of the Tenth Amendment, which entrusts the “safety and the health of the people” to the politically accountable officials of the states.

Epoch Times Photo
U.S. President Joe Biden (R) speaks on the release of Olympian and WNBA player Brittney Griner from Russian custody, at the White House in Washington on Dec. 8, 2022. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

‘Truly Unprecedented’

The appeals court found Biden’s executive order unlawful and a “truly unprecedented” use of procurement regulation to “force obligations on individual employees.”

“When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate ‘a significant portion of the American economy,’ we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism,” Engelhardt wrote. “We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance.’”

However, Congress didn’t authorize “such a dramatic shift” in the president’s power under the Procurement Act, he noted.

“Nor are historical exercises of that power sufficient to demonstrate a long-standing understanding that the Procurement Act could be used in this way,” he wrote. “The President’s use of procurement regulations to reach through an employing contractor to force obligations on individual employees is truly unprecedented.”

Judge James Graves, an appointee of former President Barrack Obama, said in his dissenting opinion that this was the first executive order under the Procurement Act to be struck down.

“When actions taken are in the mainstream of American businesses, that points towards permitting the executive order,” Graves wrote. “Economic factors would prevent the president from handicapping the contractor workforce with extreme contractual terms.”

Graves disagreed with the BMI comparison, saying that if a president tried to impose “draconian measures outside the mainstream of American companies,” he or she would face opposition from the public or Congress.

Caden Pearson

Caden Pearson is a reporter based in Australia. Contact him on caden.pearson@epochtimes.com.au


Elon Musk to Appoint Donald Trump Jr. as New Twitter CEO After Stepping Down

Austin, TX — Twitter CEO Elon Musk has announced his successor as the head of the social media company after a poll revealed that more users would like him to step down from managing the day-to-day operations of the company. After cautioning users to “be careful what you wish for,” Musk has decided to hand the reins to Donald Trump Jr. after he vacates his position.


“So y’all don’t want me running Twitter anymore? Fine! Let’s see how you deal with THIS!” he said during a Twitter Spaces session.
Twitter has not yet set a date for Trump’s takeover, but the son of former President Donald Trump seems ready and willing to run the company. “Oh, it’s gonna be LIT,” he told The Smattering. “Leftists had their collective panties in a bunch just because Elon wanted to create a level playing field for all political views…

 

Congressman Jim Jordan taking on Fauci; Rob Roos of the European Parliament Taking on the Covid Narrative; EU Corruption Exposed   

Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio is taking Fauci and the administration of  Joe Biden to task over the origins of COVID-19.


Rob Roos of the European parliament taking on the Covid Narrative


EU Corruption Exposed


Walk Away Founder Brandon Straka Sues MSNBC Hosts for Defamation Over False Statements

By Zachary Stieber
December 19, 2022 Updated: December 19, 2022

 

Two MSNBC hosts have been sued for making false statements about a man who pleaded guilty and was sentenced for taking part in the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

Chris Hayes and Ari Melber, the hosts, committed defamation when they made the statements on-air, Brandon Straka says in the new complaint.

Straka, a Democrat-turned-Republican, pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. In exchange, a slew of other charges were dropped, including impeding a law enforcement officer during a civil disorder.

Hayes, on his MSNBC show on Dec. 17, 2021, claimed that many people associated with former President Donald Trump “appear to have been smart enough not to commit the Federal crime of storming the Capitol live on television.”

“Brandon Straka is the exception,” Hayes said.

Hayes also quoted Straka as saying during the tumult at the Capitol, “Take it away from him. Take the shield!” And Hayes also claimed that Straka had broken into the Capitol.

The statements are false because Straka did not commit the federal crime of storming the Capitol, did not utter the supposed quotation, and never entered the Capitol building, the new defamation complaint states.

The evidence to support the case includes a statement of offense from an FBI agent, which says clearly states that Straka was on Capitol grounds but did not enter the Capitol. The plea agreement also says Straka was on Capitol grounds but does not say he went inside the building.

“Comparing the Hayes Statements to the truth, it is beyond peradventure that the Statements are materially false,” Straka’s complaint states.

The documents do say that Straka uttered “take it, take it,” but not the full quote attributed to him by Hayes.

Melber, meanwhile, talked about Straka during a segment of “The Beat with Ari Melber” on Oct. 19.

Melber, during an interview, with Straka’s image on screen, said that Straka “was convicted in connection with the January 6 insurrection” and “was found to have been trying to help attack police officers.”

According to the plea agreement, Straka recorded people trying to take a U.S. Capitol Police officer’s shield but did not participate in the action. The agreement was for a guilty plea for a single charge, disorderly conduct on the Capitol grounds.

Melber also claimed: “His name is Brandon Straka. He confessed. He confessed to being guilty. He was found to [have been] helping attack police.”

“The Melber Statements are materially false because Straka did not confess and was not found by any Court to have helped attack police officers or to have attempted an attack on any police officer,” the new complaint states. “Indeed, the public record, reviewed by MSNBC and Melber prior to publication, demonstrates beyond cavil that Straka did not engage in any acts of violence or encourage anyone to commit violence on January 6, 2021. Rather, he was filming events outside the east side of the Capitol in a journalistic capacity.”

Damages

The false statements caused damages to Straka, his lawyers said, referencing the recent verdicts against InfoWars founder Alex Jones.

“As was true in the Alex Jones cases MSNBC, Hayes and Melber’s actions caused Straka to be inundated with threats and subject to intense harassment and hate messages,” they said. “Invitations to appear on television and podcasts and to participate in events went cold due to the toxicity of Defendants’ false Statements. Straka suffered insult, embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, injury to his reputation, loss of income and career damage.”

Melber’s statements were made during an interview with Matt Schlapp, the chair of the Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual event where Straka has spoken a number of times. Melber “intentionally poisoned the opinion of an important and powerful colleague of Straka,” the complaint states, adding later that “MSNBC and Melber deliberately attempted to end Brandon’s career and destroy Brandon’s relationships with high-profile political figures.”

The statements were also made to millions of followers on Twitter, and to more people on YouTube, the complaint notes.

Straka alleges MSNBC, Hayes, and Melber knew the statements they made were false before they made them.

“Although MSNBC, Hayes and Melber made it appear as if they had direct knowledge of facts, such as through court records and rulings, they did not have one shred of evidence to support the Statements,” the complaint states. “MSNBC, Hayes and Melber had a preconceived agenda and, as Democratic Party trumpets, harbored an institutional hostility, hatred, extreme bias, spite and ill-will towards Plaintiff. This accumulated motive and bias caused MSNBC, Hayes and Melber to publish intentionally false Statements about Plaintiff, a conservative activist and social media influencer.”

Straka is seeking findings of defamation and invasion of privacy from the federal court in Nebraska, compensatory damages of $25 million, and both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages.

MSNBC did not respond to a request for comment from the broadcaster, Hayes, and/or Melber.

Straka’s lawyers said the lawsuit will be followed by others.

%d bloggers like this: