Our Next Soul Level; Doctor Admits  99% Intubates Patients Died; MHRA Report Card; Mammogram Risks

Doctor Admits  99% Intubates Patients Died

It’s never been about health or a cure…its about big pharma and hospitals scheming for profit. This doctor calls it “politics.”

If a hospital admits a COVID-19 patient, they get paid $13k.

If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, the hospital gets paid $39k—three times as much.

While HCQ is better known, has fewer side-effects, and costs about $20 a dose for out-patients, Remdesivir is a therapeutic course that costs $2,340/patient that has been proven to cause liver damage. Being intravenous, Remdesivir requires expensive hospital care (hospital receives an additional $13k from Medicare.)

There have been many accounts of hospitals placing non covid patients on covid floors…increasing exposure and the hospital’s chance of cashing in more. This is why some hospitals refuse to allow family in. It’s not a “safety” protocol.


MHRA YELLOW CARD REPORTING SUMMARY UP TO 23rd NOVEMBER 2022 (Data published 1st Dec 2022)
Adult & Child – Primary, Third Dose & Boosters (mono/bivalent)

People in UK who have received one or more vaccine = 53,813,491
(Up to 11th Sept 2022)

Yellow Card Adverse Event Reports – 177,925 (Pfizer) + 246,866 (AZ) + 47,045 (Moderna) + 52 (Novavax = N) + 2130 (Unknown) = 474,018 people impacted incl. bivalent vaccines (increase of 3995 in 4 weeks)

Overall 1-in-114 people injected experiences a Yellow Card Adverse Event, which may be less than 10% of actual figures according to MHRA.

TOTAL DOSES administered – 94.4million (Pfizer) + 49.16m (AZ) + 25.3m (Moderna) = 168,859,700 doses incl. all booster programmes

All boosters = 64,259,700
• Pfizer – 32.5m (mono) & 9.7m (bivalent)
• Astrazeneca – 59,700
• Moderna – 13.1m (mono) & 8.9m (bivalent)

Adverse event report figures below INCLUDE both mono- and bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

Booster Yellow Card Reports – 35,028 (Pfizer) + 655 (AZ) + 21,956 (Moderna) + 280 (Unknown) = 57,919

Reactions – 511,776 (Pfizer) + 874,912 (AZ) + 151,628 (Moderna) + 106 (Novavax = N) + 6508 (Unknown) = 1,544,930

Fatal – 857 (Pfizer) + 1334 (AZ) + 111 (Moderna) + 60 (Unknown) = 2362

Blood Disorders – 17,677 (Pfizer) + 7938 (AZ) + 2862 (Moderna) + 75 (Unknown) = 28,552

Anaphylaxis – 687 (Pfizer) + 888 (AZ) + 102 (Moderna) + 2 (N) + 3 (Unknown) = 1682

Acute Cardiac – 14,375 (Pfizer) + 11,813 (AZ) + 4177 (Moderna) + 5 (N) + 161 (Unknown) = 30,531

Eye Disorders – 8461 (Pfizer) + 15,107 (AZ) + 1939 (Moderna) + 105 (Unknown) = 25,612

Blindness – 180 (Pfizer) + 330 (AZ) + 46 (Moderna) + 5 (Unknown) = 561

Deafness – 331 (Pfizer) + 447 (AZ) + 70 (Moderna) + 6 (Unknown) = 854

Infections – 13,600 (Pfizer) + 20,951 (AZ) + 3160 (Moderna) + 5 (N) + 263 (Unknown) = 37,979

Herpes – 2341 (Pfizer) + 2725 (AZ) + 363 (Moderna) + 2 (N) + 30 (Unknown) = 5461

Spontaneous Abortions – 505 + 19 stillbirths/foetal deaths (Pfizer) + 240 + 6 stillbirths/foetal deaths (AZ) + 74 + 1 stillbirth (Moderna) +11 (Unknown) = 830 miscarriages

Gastrointestinal Disorders – 44,248 (Pfizer) + 81,396 (AZ) + 13,828 (Moderna) + 6 (N) + 506 (Unknown) = 139,984

Strokes and CNS hemorrhages – 878 (Pfizer) + 2429 (AZ) + 108 (Moderna) + 1 (N) + 27 (Unknown) = 3443

Nervous System Disorders – 84,728 (Pfizer) + 184,225 (AZ) + 24,827 (Moderna) + 16 (N) + 1088 (Unknown) = 294,884

Seizures – 1201 (Pfizer) + 2113 (AZ) + 340 (Moderna) + 34 (Unknown) = 3688

Paralysis – 553 (Pfizer) + 916 (AZ) + 148 (Moderna) + 15 (Unknown) = 1632

Vertigo & Tinnitus – 4426 (Pfizer) + 6935 (AZ) + 925 (Moderna) + 56 (Unknown) = 12,342

Respiratory Disorders – 23,064 (Pfizer) + 30,230 (AZ) + 5592 (Moderna) + 3 (N) + 279 (Unknown) = 59,168

Epistaxis (nosebleeds) – 1148 (Pfizer) + 2307 (AZ) + 240 (Moderna) + 12 (Unknown) = 3707

Psychiatric Disorders – 10,798 (Pfizer) + 18,699 (AZ) + 3025 (Moderna) + 1 (N) + 158 (Unknown) = 32,681

Skin Disorders – 35,879 (Pfizer) + 53,819 (AZ) + 15,036 (Moderna) + 7 (N) + 464 (Unknown) = 105,205

Reproductive/Breast Disorders – 31,789 (Pfizer) + 20,983 (AZ) + 5438 (Moderna) + 1 (N) + 271 (Unknown) = 58,482

Bell’s Palsy – 677 (Pfizer) + 646 (AZ) + 127 (Moderna) + 1 (N) + 3 (Unknown) = 1454

CHILDREN & YOUNG PEOPLE SPECIAL REPORT
Suspected side effects reported in individuals under 18yrs old

• Pfizer – 4,200,000 children (1st doses) + 2,900,000 (2nd doses) + 400,000(mono)/52,500(bivalent) boosters resulting in 4205 Yellow Cards

• AZ – 11,400 children (1st doses) + 8.500 (2nd doses) + ‘extremely limited boosters’ resulting in 267 Yellow Cards (reporting rate 1-in-43)

• Moderna – 2100 children (1st doses) + 2000 (2nd doses) + 32,400(mono)/1000(bivalent) boosters resulting in 39 Yellow cards

• Brand Unspecified – 37 Yellow Cards

Total = 4,213,700 children injected (under 18s)
Total doses (1st, 2nd & boosters) = 7,609,900
Total Yellow Cards Under 18s = 4548

For full reports including 387 pages of specific reaction listings – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions


 

The Business of Breast Cancer: Mammogram Risks

An epidemic of low-value screenings is driving millions of women to get unnecessary tests and treatments
Jan 14 2023

 

Getting older is a complicated business. As we age, trips to the doctor increasingly conclude with requisitions for different screenings—tests meant to help diagnose potential problems and keep us healthy for the long haul.

Although many tests used to detect cancer have been hailed as life-saving miracles of modern medicine, some have a dark side. Concerns over the prolific use of mammograms for detecting breast cancer have been growing in the scientific community as journals publish research revealing these tests come with their own risks. With roughly seventy percent of women in the U.S. over forty having mammograms at least every two years, it raises questions about their safety, if information about potential dangers is being obscured, and who might really be benefitting from this widespread testing.

What if millions of women are fueling a billion-dollar industry with ever-increasing profits by using screening that not only hasn’t improved outcomes, but may be harming the women it is supposed to save?

Cancer in Our Society

Cancer is pervasive and widely feared due to its relentlessness, brutality, and the grueling nature of many cancer treatments. The National Cancer Institute spends billions on cancer research each year and cancer fundraisers are a perennial activity in our communities. Virtually every cancer has a month dedicated to its awarenessOctober is breast cancer awareness month, which it politely shares with liver cancer awareness in the United States.

As we get older, cancer is something we think about more and our doctors push us to get tests and screenings to make sure cancer cells haven’t been seeded in our bodies.

Breast Cancer

Breast cancer deeply frightens many women (and yes, men can get it too). If you happen to be considered high-risk, screenings may start as early as your twenties. In the United States, mammograms are considered the gold standard of testing for breast cancer and there are now both 2D and 3D varieties for women to choose from.

Mammograms use x-rays (a form of ionizing radiation) to take pictures of the breast. A machine is used where a woman places her breast between two plates or paddles where it is then compressed and x-ray images are captured.

In a 2D mammogram, two images are taken, one from the top and one from the side, creating a 2D picture.

3D, or tomosynthesis, is largely the same process, using slightly more radiation and capturing additional images, creating a three-dimensional picture of the breast.

Radiologists use the images to look for abnormalities, with breast cancer usually appearing as a white mass. If abnormalities are found, the patient is asked to come back for more tests, often an MRI, or to have a biopsy. Mammograms do not diagnose breast cancer. They look for abnormalities in the breast and can give the patient more information about their breast tissue, if masses are present, and if further investigation is needed. The only way to diagnose breast cancer after an abnormality is seen is to do a biopsy.

Mammography: What You Should Know

Mammography does, however, have risks that all women should be aware of. The two main concerns of mammography are radiation exposure and overdiagnosis.

Because mammography uses a type of ionizing radiation, it comes with inherent risk. We are all exposed to radiation every day. Some of that radiation, like the ultraviolet and infrared rays of the sun, is essential to our health (in appropriate doses). But we are well adapted to these natural, low levels of radiation. The same is not true of man-made radiation.

The ionizing radiation used in mammograms is much stronger than natural sources.  At high levels, ionizing radiation can harm our tissues, organs, and lead to cancer. According to the American Cancer Society (ACS) the dose of radiation people receive from a mammogram is about the same amount of radiation people get from their natural surroundings in a three-month period.

This is of concern because there are parts of the body that are particularly sensitive to radiation, and we should limit our exposure whenever possible. In fact, Cornell University’s Program on Breast Cancer Environmental Risk Factors states that “The female breast is known to be highly susceptible to the cancer-causing effects of radiation when exposure occurs before menopause.” A mammogram is also directing this radiation not only at the breast, but at the other organs inside the chest, like the heart and lungs.

A cohort study published in the British Journal of Cancer in 2012 followed more than 500,000 women from 1973 until 2009. The study found that women who had received radiation treatment for breast cancer (high energy x-rays) had a significant increase in heart disease and lung cancer in the decades after their treatment.

The study clearly demonstrates a progressive increase in both risk and mortality from radiation-related heart disease and lung cancer with time (into the third decade) after exposure to radiation.

The study is one of many to raise questions about routine mammograms for women at low risk of breast cancer.

Overdiagnosis

The other issue with mammography is overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis is a concern because mammograms can detect abnormalities that may not be cancer, or cancers that would have regressed on their own but are treated once they are discovered. That means many women are exposed to chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery that may not have been not needed.

An article published in Public Health Research and Practice entitled What Is Overdiagnosis and Why Should We Take It Seriously? offers a very good explanation of what overdiagnosis is and why it is a problem, defining overdiagnosis this way:

“In cancer screening, overdiagnosed cancers are those that did not need to be found because they would not have produced symptoms or led to premature death.”

“Overdiagnosis in cancer screening arises largely from the paradoxical problem that screening is most likely to find the slow-growing or dormant cancers that are least likely to harm us, and less likely to find the aggressive, fast-growing cancers that cause cancer mortality. This central paradox has become clearer over recent decades. The more overdiagnosis is produced by a screening program, the less likely the program is to serve its ultimate goal of reducing illness and premature death from cancer.”

An article published in The Lancet in 2013 argued that two 30- to 35- year old randomized studies underestimated when they concluded that there was a 19 percent rate of overdiagnosis when screening with mammography.

The author, Per-Henrik Zahl, a researcher with the Norwegian Institute of Public Health who has looked at breast cancer overdiagnosis, argues that detection rates and the level of overdiagnosis have increased 100 percent or more as the sensitivity of mammograms has improved.

Zahl notes that when screening was introduced in Sweden and Norway there was a 50 percent increase in invasive breast cancer. The total increase in diagnosis in Norway was 75 percent. He concluded that almost all of the increase in cancer detection through screening was due to lesions that normally go into spontaneous regression.

comparative study published in the journal BMC Women’s Health in 2009 set out to quantify overdiagnosis in the Danish mammography screening program. Denmark is unique as only 20 percent of the population has been offered mammography over an extended period. Incidence rates of carcinoma in situ (stage 0 breast cancer) and invasive breast cancer were collected in areas with and without screening over thirteen years, and twenty years before its introduction. The study found that in the screened women, the overdiagnosis rate was 33 percent.

systematic review published in the British Medical Journal in 2009 tracked the incidence of breast cancer before and after the introduction of mammography screening in specific areas—the United Kingdom; Manitoba, Canada; New South Wales, Australia; Sweden and parts of Norway—both seven years before and seven years after public breast cancer screening programs were implemented. The review found that overdiagnosis was estimated at 52 percent and concluded that one in three breast cancers detected in a population offered screening was overdiagnosed.

As evidence of overdiagnosis has accumulated, it is now recognized as the most serious downside of population-wide breast screening.

What Women Think

One of the main concerns with mammograms is that women may not be warned about the potential risks and all the factors involved in breast cancer screening. A cross-sectional survey of 479 women in the United States, aged 18-97 published in the British Journal of Medicine set out to understand women’s attitudes to and knowledge of false-positive mammography results as well as the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (a type of stage 0 breast cancer) after screening mammography.

Ductal carcinoma in situ is defined as the presence of abnormal cells inside the milk duct in the breast. DCIS is considered an early form of breast cancer. DCIS is non-invasive, meaning it is still isolated and has not spread out of the milk duct and has a low risk of becoming invasive.

The survey concluded that women were aware of false positives, seeming to view them as an acceptable consequence of screening mammography. In contrast, most women were unaware that screening can detect cancers that may never progress (ductal carcinoma in situ) and felt that that information was relevant.

The study also found that only 8 percent of women thought mammography could harm a woman without breast cancer and 94 percent did not realize (doubted) that mammograms could detect cancers that might not progress. Few of the women in the study knew about ductal carcinoma in situ, but 60 percent of the women wanted to take into account the possibility that any cancer detected may not progress.

Another study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 2013 looked at overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer, and what physicians were telling patients about the risks of screening, specifically the possibility of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Less than 10 percent said they were told about the risks of mammograms by their physicians. Little more than half (51 percent) said they would not agree to screening if it resulted in one overtreated person per one life saved. These numbers imply that millions of Americans might not choose to be screened if they knew the whole story, but unfortunately, 90 percent are not getting that information.

The Cancer Industry Recommendations

In the United States, mammograms are the standard screening used to detect breast cancer, and doctors usually begin speaking to their women patients about mammograms at around age forty.

Both The American College of Radiology and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend women begin annual mammograms at age forty. The American Cancer Society recommends annual screenings begin at 45 (then once every other year after 55), and The US Preventative Services Task Force recommends women begin mammograms every other year at age fifty.

Mammograms are approved by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) which regulates the standards for mammography machines and the people who provide them. The FDA has also released several warnings about using thermography instead of mammograms, reminding the public that mammography is still the most effective primary breast cancer screening test.

Do Regular Mammograms Lead to Better Outcomes?

The question becomes, do regular mammograms lead to better outcomes? Well, it would depend on how you define better outcomes. If we are talking about detecting breast cancer, it seems the answer is most certainly yes. Mammograms seem an excellent tool for detecting breast cancer. But, if we define better outcomes as fewer women dying of breast cancer, then we seem to have entered a different territory.

An article, “Mammograms and Mortality: How Has the Evidence Evolved?” published in 2021 noted that a previous meta-analysis of mammogram studies revealed that mammograms have led to no significant reduction in all-cause mortality (death from any cause) for women of any age group. The article, by Amanda Kowalski, a health economist and the Gail Wilensky Professor of Applied Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan Department of Economics, also notes that some trials even show imprecise increases in all-cause mortality across all age groups or within an age group. These findings were based on eight large randomized controlled trials that combined included over 600,000 women.

A very large Canadian randomized screening trial published in the British Medical Journal followed nearly 90,000 women aged 40-59 over 25 years, who were considered at average risk for breast cancer. One group of women received routine mammograms, and the other did not. The somewhat surprising results were that mortality rates in both groups were almost identical. The overall conclusion of the study was that annual mammography in women aged 40-59 does not reduce mortality from breast cancer any better than a physical examination. The study also noted that they found the overdiagnosis rate among the mammography participants was 22 percent.

An analysis published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine in 2015 concluded that mammograms have been promoted to the public with three promises that all seem to be wrong. The first is that they save lives, the second is that they save breasts, and the third is that they catch cancer early. The author, Peter C Gøtzsche, formerly with the Nordic Cochrane Center and co-founder of the influential Cochrane Collaboration, states that mammogram screenings do not help women live longer, increase mastectomies, and many cancers are still caught at a very late stage.

It’s a sentiment other researchers have also expressed.

“The time has come to reassess whether universal mammographic screening should be recommended for any age group because the declines in breast cancer mortality can be ascribed mainly to improved treatments and breast cancer awareness; currently, we see that screening has only a minor effect on mortality (if any),” researchers from Nordic Cochrane Centre wrote in the journal Radiology in 2011.

In 2013, the Swiss Medical Board—an independent health technology assessment initiative—was asked to prepare a review of mammography screening. After a panel reviewed the available evidence—and contemplated its implications in detail—they were extremely concerned. The Swiss Medical Board’s report was released on Feb. 2, 2014, and acknowledged that systematic mammography screening might prevent about one death from breast cancer for every one thousand women screened, even though there was no evidence that overall mortality was affected. It also emphasized the harm caused by mammography, specifically false-positive test results and the risk of overdiagnosis. The report cites the following statistics, from a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association:

“For every breast-cancer death prevented in U.S. women over a 10-year course of annual screening beginning at 50 years of age, 490 to 670 women are likely to have a false positive mammogram with repeat examination; 70 to 100, an unnecessary biopsy; and 3 to 14, an overdiagnosed breast cancer that would never have become clinically apparent.”

Based on their findings, the board recommended that no new systematic mammography screening programs be introduced in Switzerland and that a time limit be placed on existing programs in the country, phasing them out entirely.

(On the New England Journal of Medicine’s website you can listen to an interview the journal conducted with Dr. Mette Kalager on the Swiss Board’s recommendation and learn more about why they recommended phasing out routine mammography screening.)

The Nordic Cochrane Centre, thought to be one of the world’s best and least biased research institutions, conducted a systematic review to assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity. The trials they looked at included 600,000 women aged 39-74 years. The conclusions, published in 2013, are as follows:

“If we assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15 percent and that overdiagnosis and overtreatment is at 30 percent, it means that for every 2,000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress including anxiety and uncertainty for years because of false positive findings.”

The study’s authors, Peter C Gøtzsche and Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, state that women should be fully informed of both the benefits and harms. They went so far as to write an evidence-based leaflet in several languages to help women understand the risks.

The Mammography Industry-Projected Earnings

What might perhaps be interesting to know is that mammography is a multi-billion dollar industry.

In September 2022, Vantage Market Research released a report that projected earnings for the mammography market would be from US $1.8 billion in 2021 to $3.2 billion by 2028.

Growing markets in Asia will provide most of that expansion. The report attributes the huge growth in the region to the existence of a significant number of mammography companies, and the high adoption rate due to government measures that stimulate the industry and increasing collaborations between the mammography industry and governments in the region.

Final Thoughts

Success when it comes to breast cancer really depends on the outcome we are trying to achieve. If it is early detection, then we seem to be doing a stellar job. But if our goal is lowering mortality rates, we seem to be in a gray zone and possibly moving backwards. With the present technology—and its increasing sensitivity—we seem to have created many more cancer patients, perhaps unnecessarily, and are keeping women in the dark about the dangers.

Michael Baum, a Professor Emeritus of Surgery and a visiting Professor of Medical Humanities at University College London (UCL), is a British surgical oncologist specializing in breast cancer treatment and one of the architects of Britain’s national breast screening program.

Baum went from being one of the most determined supporters of breast cancer screening to one of its most vocal opponents.

In his book, “The History and Mystery of Breast Cancer,” he explains why.

“The largest threat posed by American medicine is that more and more of us are being drawn into the system not because of an epidemic of disease, but because of an epidemic of diagnoses. The real problem with the epidemic of diagnoses is that it leads to an epidemic of treatments. Not all treatments have important benefits, but almost all can have harms.”

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.

Emma Suttie

Emma Suttie D.AC, AP  is an acupuncture physician and founder of Chinese Medicine Living—a website dedicated to sharing how to use traditional wisdom to live a healthy lifestyle in the modern world. She is a lover of the natural world, martial arts, and a good cup of tea.


Meditation is a natural relaxation state of the mind and is considered to be most important mental exercise to practice during our lifetime. Meditation is actually our natural state and our connection to the Divine.

Mindfulness can be practice all the time by simply focusing on the current moment, not yesterday or tomorrow but the present moment.

The proper way to meditate is just start. You will develop a practice over time but start with what works for you. Sitting in a chair or floor with good posture, close your eyes, take 5–10 slow deep breaths, following your breath. Your relaxing your mind so try not to think of anything. Just focus on a point in the front of eyes. You will find your thoughts drifting to problems just bring the focus back to the point in front of the eyes. The time you meditate is up to you.

Make meditation part of your life and you will see the world anew.

Corruption; The COVID Jabbed Are Dying While Fueling Variants

And We Know

The COVID Jabbed Are Dying While Fueling Variants

Jan 10 2023

Public health officials are sounding the alarm about a new Omicron variant, XBB, that is spreading across the northeast US. Studies suggest it is vastly different from the original Wuhan strain and is evading herd immunity and the latest BA.5 boosters. Are the mRNA shots to blame?

 

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • At the end of December 2022, John Campbell, Ph.D., posted a video calling on the British health authorities to halt the use of mRNA COVID injections, as the data suggest there are far too many safety issues
  • Campbell argues that while the risk of complications and death due to COVID has significantly lessened since the early days of 2020, the risks associated with the COVID jabs remain the same. Hence, the risk-benefit ratio of the mass injection campaign has flipped, and the risk associated with the shot now outweighs the risk of infection
  • The COVID jabbed are now dying in greater numbers than the unjabbed — so much so that it has driven down the overall life expectancy in the U.S. by nearly three years
  • Across the world, excess mortality has dramatically risen since the rollout of the jabs. If they were beneficial, you’d expect excess mortality to drop. We’re also not seeing mass death from COVID. The only clear factor that might account for these discrepancies is mass injection with an experimental gene transfer technology
  • Most COVID-19 related deaths are also occurring among the fully jabbed and boosted

Since the beginning of the COVID pandemic, John Campbell, Ph.D., a retired nurse educator, has gained a following for his even-handed evaluations of COVID science and statistics. While he’s not known for taking a stand against the COVID shots, that recently changed.

At the end of December 2022, Campbell posted a video (above) calling on the British health authorities to halt the use of mRNA COVID injections, as the data suggest there are far too many safety issues to continue.

Moreover, most COVID-19 hospitalizations in 2022 were incidental, meaning they were not hospitalized “for” COVID but, rather, tested positive once admitted. Waves of outbreaks with newer, less hazardous variants have also resulted in high levels of natural immunity.

Campbell argues that while the risk of complications and death due to COVID has significantly lessened since the early days of 2020, the risks associated with the COVID jabs remain the same as they were at the outset.

Hence, the risk-benefit ratio of the mass injection campaign has flipped, and the risk associated with the shot now outweighs the risk of infection. Campbell is now urging the British government to pause the continued booster campaign until a population-wide risk-benefit analysis has been carried out, and the data published with full transparency so that independent researchers can verify the findings.

Life Expectancy Plummeted After COVID Jabs Rolled Out

What Campbell does not address in this video, but has reviewed in others, is that the COVID jabbed are actually dying in greater numbers than the unjabbed — so much so that it has driven down the overall life expectancy in the U.S. by nearly three years.1

In 2019, the average life span of Americans of all ethnicities was 78.8 years.2 By the end of 2020, it had dropped to 77.0 years3 and by the end of 2021, it was 76.4.4

We know this drop isn’t due to people dying of COVID-19, because the age groups with the highest increases in mortality were working age adults, 25 through 54, followed by children between the ages of 1 and 4.5 And, they are not tiny increases.

Rates of death increased 16.1% for 35- to 44-year-olds, 13.4% for 25- to 34-year-olds, 12.1% for 45- to 54-year-olds, and 10.1% for 1- to 4-year-olds. Meanwhile, COVID mortality was, from the start, highest among the elderly.

The average age of death due to COVID-19 was 82,6 which is actually older than the average life span, and mortality rates only increased by 3.8% among 65- to 74-year-olds and 2.4% among those aged 75 to 84. Life insurance data also confirm that it’s working age adults who are dying in record numbers.7

Excess Mortality Took Off After COVID Shots Were Introduced

COVID-19 is also an unlikely cause for the rapid decline in life expectancy for the simple fact that it’s not a major contributor to rising excess mortality, which only took off after the introduction of the COVID shots in early 2021.8

Excess mortality is a statistic that is related to but separate from life expectancy. It refers to the difference between the observed numbers of deaths (from all causes) during a given time, compared to the expected number of deaths based on historical norms, such as the previous five-year average. (Formula: reported deaths – expected deaths = excess deaths.)

Across the world, excess mortality has dramatically risen since the rollout of the jabs, and barely a day now goes by without a healthy adult suddenly dropping dead with no apparent cause.

If the COVID jabs were beneficial, you’d expect excess mortality to drop, yet that’s not what we’re seeing. We’re also not seeing mass death from COVID. The only clear factor that might account for these discrepancies is mass injection with an experimental gene transfer technology.

The Jabbed Also Account for Most COVID-19 Deaths

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data also show that most COVID-19 related deaths are now occurring among the jabbed and boosted, and this despite the fact that numbers are artificially suppressed by only counting people as “vaccinated” or “boosted” if they’re at least two weeks out from their last shot. As reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF):9

“In fall 2021, about 3 in 10 adults dying of COVID-19 were vaccinated or boosted. But by January 202210 … about 4 in 10 deaths were vaccinated or boosted. By April 2022 … data11 show that about 6 in 10 adults dying of COVID-19 were vaccinated or boosted, and that’s remained true through at least August 2022 (the most recent month of data).”

covid-19 deaths by vaccination status

The data from this chart come from the CDC, which collects data on the number of deaths by vaccination status from 30 health departments (including states and cities) across the country.

In order to be counted as vaccinated, a person must be at least two weeks out from completing their primary series … Similarly, to be counted as having a booster, a person must be at least two weeks out from their booster or additional dose before testing positive. People who were partially vaccinated are not included in this data.”

COVID Jab Is Likely Fueling Mutation of Variants

Another reason to halt the COVID booster campaign that Campbell does not address is the very likely possibility that the shots are fueling mutations, giving rise to ever new and more resistant variants. As reported in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Allysia Finley,12 “The virus appears to be evolving in ways that evade immunity,” which is bad for the jabbed and unjabbed alike.

“Public-health experts are sounding the alarm about a new Omicron variant dubbed XBB that is rapidly spreading across the Northeast U.S.,” Finley writes.

“Some studies13 suggest it is as different from the original COVID strain from Wuhan as the 2003 SARS virus … It isn’t clear that XBB is any more lethal than other variants, but its mutations enable it to evade antibodies from prior infection and vaccines as well as existing monoclonal antibody treatments.

Growing evidence also suggests that repeated vaccinations may make people more susceptible to XBB and could be fueling the virus’s rapid evolution …

Under selective evolutionary pressures, the virus appears to have developed mutations that enable it to transmit more easily and escape antibodies elicited by vaccines and prior infection.

The same study posits that immune imprinting may be contributing to the viral evolution. Vaccines do a good job of training the immune system to remember and knock out the original Wuhan variant. But when new and markedly different strains come along, the immune system responds less effectively.

Bivalent vaccines that target the Wuhan and BA.5 variants … prompt the immune system to produce antibodies that target viral regions the two strains have in common … XBB has evolved to elude antibodies induced by the vaccines and breakthrough infections.

Hence, the Nature study suggests, ‘current herd immunity and BA.5 vaccine boosters may not efficiently prevent the infection of Omicron convergent variants.’”

Indeed, a drawback of the original COVID shot that was widely ignored was that it only triggered the creation of antibodies against a single piece of the virus (the spike), whereas natural immunity creates antibodies against all of its parts.

Experts warned that embarking on a mass injection campaign would put enormous pressure on the spike that would result in mutations to evade immunity, and this is precisely what happened.

How Vaccines Can Drive Viruses to Mutate

The idea that vaccines can cause viral mutations is not new. As explained in “Vaccines Are Pushing Pathogens to Evolve,” published in Quanta Magazine14 in 2018, “Just as antibiotics breed resistance in bacteria, vaccines can incite changes that enable diseases to escape their control.”

The article details the history of the anti-Marek’s disease vaccine for chickens, first introduced in 1970. Today, we’re on the third version of this vaccine, as within a decade, it stops working. The reason for this is because the virus continuously mutates to evade the vaccine. What’s worse, the virus is also becoming increasingly deadly and more difficult to treat.

A 2015 paper15 in PLOS Biology tested the theory that vaccines are driving the mutation of the herpesvirus causing Marek’s disease in chickens. To do that, they vaccinated 100 chickens and kept 100 unvaccinated. All of the birds were then infected with varying strains of the virus. Some strains were more virulent and dangerous than others.

Viruses mutate all the time, and if you have a leaky vaccine, meaning one that doesn’t block infection completely, then the virus will mutate to evade the immune response within that person.

Over the course of the birds’ lives, the unvaccinated ones shed more of the least virulent strains into the environment, while the vaccinated ones shed more of the most virulent strains. As noted in the Quanta article:16

“The findings suggest that the Marek’s vaccine encourages more dangerous viruses to proliferate. This increased virulence might then give the viruses the means to overcome birds’ vaccine-primed immune responses and sicken vaccinated flocks.”

The take-home message here is that viruses mutate all the time, and if you have a leaky vaccine, meaning one that doesn’t block infection completely, then the virus will mutate to evade the immune response within that person.

As it happens, that is one of the distinct features of the COVID shots. They’re not designed to block infection. They allow infection to occur and at best lessen the symptoms, and as a result, the virus can mutate more or less unhindered. So, while the unjabbed were initially accused of being the ones responsible for mutations, it’s actually the jabbed who are the primary vectors.

Risk of COVID Infection Rises With Number of Shots

While newer variants can circumvent both “vaccine” immunity and natural immunity, natural immunity still provides far better protection, because the more shots a person gets, the more predisposed they become to COVID-19 infection.

This was most recently demonstrated in a Cleveland Clinic study,17 which concluded that the risk of COVID-19 infection “increased … with the number of vaccine doses previously received.” As reported by Finley:18

“Notably, workers who had received more doses were at higher risk of getting sick. Those who received three more doses were 3.4 times as likely to get infected as the unvaccinated, while those who received two were only 2.6 times as likely.

‘This is not the only study to find a possible association with more prior vaccine doses and higher risk of COVID-19,’ the authors noted. ‘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.’”

COVID Shots Suppress Your Immune Function

The COVID jabbed are also contracting other infections, as the shots weaken their innate immune system. In December 2022, MIT researcher Stephanie Seneff and Drs. Peter McCullough, Greg Nigh and Anthony Kyriakopoulos published a paper19 in which they described how the COVID shots inhibit the type-1 interferon pathway, which is the first-stage response to all viral infections.

As a result of this interferon inhibition, your innate immune system is suppressed, opening the door for all kinds of infections. Type-1 interferon also keeps latent viruses in check, so if your interferon pathway is suppressed, latent viruses, such as shingles, 20,21,22,23 can start to emerge. Importantly, cancer can also proliferate unchecked when your immune system is impaired.

Bivalent Boosters Are Minimally Effective at Best

The Cleveland Clinic study24 cited earlier also found that the bivalent COVID-19 booster was only 30% effective in preventing infection “during the time when the virus strains dominant in the community were represented in the vaccine.”

In other words, the boosters provide minimal protection even when well-matched to the circulating strain, and as its protection wanes, it leaves you at higher risk of infection than before.

bivalent covid-19 booster

Got the Jab? Take Action to Safeguard Your Health

If you already got one or more jabs and now have concerns about your health, what can you do? Well, first and foremost, never take another COVID booster, another mRNA gene therapy shot or regular vaccine. You need to end the assault on your system.

If you developed symptoms you didn’t have before your shot, I would encourage you to seek out expert help. Unfortunately, most conventional doctors are clueless when it comes to COVID jab injuries (and vaccine injuries in general), so you’ll need to do some homework.

At present, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) seems to have one of the best treatment protocols for post-jab injuries. It’s called I-RECOVER and can be downloaded from covid19criticalcare.com.25

Dr. Pierre Kory, who co-founded the FLCCC, has transitioned to treating the vaccine injured more or less exclusively. For more information, see DrPierreKory.comDr. Michelle Perro26 is also helping patients with post-jab injuries. I interviewed her about her treatment strategies in May 2022.

The World Health Council has also published lists of remedies that can help inhibit, neutralize and eliminate spike protein, which most experts agree is the primary culprit. I covered these in my 2021 article, “World Council for Health Reveals Spike Protein Detox.”

Other Helpful Treatments and Remedies

Other treatments and remedies that may be helpful for COVID jab injuries include:

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy, especially in cases involving stroke, heart attack, autoimmune diseases and/or neurodegenerative disorders. To learn more, see “Hyperbaric Therapy — A Vastly Underused Treatment Modality.”

Lower your Omega-6 intake. Linoleic acid is consumed in amounts 10 times higher than the ideal in well over 95% of the population and contributes to massive oxidative stress that impairs your immune response. Seed oils and processed foods need to be diligently avoided. See “How Linoleic Acid Wrecks Your Health” for more information.

Pharmaceutical grade methylene blue, which improves mitochondrial respiration and aid in mitochondrial repair. A dose of 15 to 80 milligrams a day could go a long way toward resolving some of the fatigue many suffer post-jab.

It may also be helpful in acute strokes. The primary contraindication is if you have a G6PD deficiency (a hereditary genetic condition), in which case you should not use methylene blue at all. To learn more, see “The Surprising Health Benefits of Methylene Blue.”

Near-infrared light, as it triggers production of melatonin in your mitochondria27 where you need it most. By mopping up reactive oxygen species, it too helps improve mitochondrial function and repair. Natural sunlight is 54.3% infrared radiation,28 so this treatment is available for free. For more information, see “What You Need to Know About Melatonin.”

Lumbrokinase and serrapeptidase are both fibrinolytic enzymes that, when taken on an empty stomach one hour before a meal, or two hours after, will help reduce your risk of blood clots.

Originally published January 10, 2023 on Mercola.com

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.

Joseph Mercola

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 a valuable resource to help them take control of their health.

Urgently Need Your Help; General Flynn Comments; Word to the Unvaccinated; Energy Wave Programing; What is Real, What is Not

Video Link

Supreme Court of the United States case 22-380


General Flynn says the enemy is acting the way they are because they’re worried (panicked!), and he wants the American people to be ready to rally at the right time, saying 99.9% we will be unified:


A word to the Unvaccinated


How they can program us through wave of energy that has a profound effect on us.


Was 911 a setup? Decide for yourself as  conspiracy theories are coming true.


Satanic cults and cannibals  are todays powerful people


What is real, what is not. What is your perception of reality?

We have been enslaved for a long time by  the negative force of humanity. The veil is lifting and we beginning to the world from a different perspective.  First and foremost we are energetic beings and our bodies are far more full of our essence in the metaphysical sense than our physical body. Think of the universe as a whole as a field of energy, infinite, mysterious and intelligent and we are all connected.

This energy source has also been validated by the late Dr. Valerie V. Hunt, scientist, author, lecturer and Professor Emeritus of Physiological Science at the University of California. She confirmed electromagnetic energy is the most plentiful constant energy of our universe. It is a part of all structures living and dead, including the atmosphere. We create electromagnetic energies in the atoms of our living cells, which we enhance by the reaction with the atmospheric energy field. We know this expanded energy field as the human aura. Without this biofield life would not exist and there would be only an inner biochemical mix. Dr. Hunt was involved in research that is uncovering the various dimensions involved in the bioenergetic transactions between humans and the environment as they relate to human behaviors, emotions, health, illness, and disease, as well as scientifically quantifying the human aura and the levels of consciousness it contains.

In order to tap into this source, we should focus on the metaphysical as well as the physical, realizing our beliefs, thoughts, emotions and actions all are contributing factors to our reality. Our focus is mostly on the material aspect of our world; providing for our families, trying to stay healthy, and dealing with the seemingly chaotic and troubling world. Many are trying to find their way spiritually. We all have problems and troubles and that is part of our test. How do we handle those situations? Are we fearful and angry or loving and compassionate?

How we handle those situations are entirely in our control. The wonderful thing about our lives is we have free-will with the ability to choose. Keep in mind energy flows where your attention goes.

Balancing involves the body, mind and spirit which includes diet, movement of the body, dealing with negative and positive emotions, and the will to reconnecting to the source of creation. When you reconnect, you will realize the oneness of the creation. God, Tao, Infinite  Intelligence,  Creator, Universal Mind are just one of the many names of the same Source of our creation that mankind has been trying to connect since the beginning. We are in the best time of our lives and are blessed to be here.

13 AGs Urged to Investigate & Prosecute the CDC; Simpsons in 2010; Unvaccinated Are the Envy of the World; Fauci lied, people died – Musk

Attorney Edward A. Berkovich Urges 13 AGs to Investigate & Prosecute the CDC for Criminal Charges

“This crime, according to Mr. Berkovich, is reckless endangerment and other similar crimes. And I say similar crimes because state legal codes vary right state by state,” explained Dr. Wolf.

“But basically, these people are criminals, and they hurt people by concealing the evidence that this was a dangerous injection.”


The Simpsons made this episode in 2010


Psychiatric Treatment? The Unvaccinated Are the Envy of the World Right Now

“I’ve been following the news story out of Canada where it’s been proposed that people who declined the vaccine should receive psychiatric treatment,” shared Dr. McCullough (http://t.me/c19expertchannel).

“[The] people [who] are declining the vaccine are the ones that have the most critical thinking, the most discernment — the strongest minds and bodies around us. They’re the last people that need psychiatric medication.”

Dr. Peter A. McCullough (http://t.me/c19expertchannel) is a world-renowned MD — fighting against censorship and reprisal. He has partnered with The Wellness Company (http://t.me/thewellnesscompany), a parallel structure to pharma-dominated medicine, where he serves as Chief Scientific Officer.


Debilitated, Demoralized, and On Their Own: The Federal Government Has Abandoned the Vaccine-Injured

“I am not alone,” attested Brianne Dressen after being diagnosed with a severe form of neuropathy after participating in the AstraZeneca trials.

“There is one word that summarizes what’s happening to the COVID vaccine-injured. There is one word to describe us — and it is ghost.


12 Dec, 2022 03:44

Fauci lied, people died – Musk

“My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci,” the new Twitter boss has announced
Fauci lied, people died – Musk

Tesla and Twitter CEO Elon Musk triggered a social media firestorm on Sunday after suggesting that US Covid-19 czar Dr. Anthony Fauci should be investigated and prosecuted for allegedly lying under oath about the funding of research at a Wuhan lab in China.

In what initially appeared to simply be a humorous dig, Musk also posted a meme showing the retiring White House chief medical adviser whispering “Just one more lockdown, my king” in President Joe Biden’s ear.

However, after Fauci’s name was propelled to the top of Twitter’s trends with over 600,000 mentions, Musk apparently felt the need to elaborate why he thought the controversial face of America’s response to the pandemic should be investigated.

“As for Fauci, he lied to Congress and funded gain-of-function research that killed millions of people,” Musk said in response to one critic, adding “not awesome imo.”

“Fauci’s resignation should not prevent a full-throated investigation into the origins of the pandemic. He must be required to testify under oath regarding any discussions he participated in concerning the Wuhan lab leak. His policies destroyed lives,” Paul tweeted.

The senator previously accused Fauci of directing public funding to gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab and lying about it under oath in congressional testimony, as the two sparred repeatedly in Senate hearings.

Gain-of-function is the modification of pathogens to enhance them in various potential ways, including transmissibility. The rationale is that scientists can study new strains and find ways to stop them before similar adaptations emerge naturally.

The ‘lab leak’ theory – that the coronavirus leaked from a Chinese lab – was popularized by former US President Donald Trump, who made the allegation amid a trade war with China. Major US media organizations and tech platforms initially labeled it as ‘disinformation’ and tried to suppress the theory from public discourse. However, after Musk took over Twitter, the company stopped enforcing its Covid-19 “misleading information policy.”

FBI Whistleblower; Why the Unvaccinated Are Concerned About Close Contact With COVID-19 Vaccinated; Arizona Attorney General Candidate Sues Over Midterm Election Results

 

Why the Unvaccinated Are Concerned About Close Contact With COVID-19 Vaccinated

Learn more about the shedding of mRNA and spike protein

One of the most common questions I am asked from the unvaccinated stems from concerns over “shedding.” 

Because the mRNA vaccines have been in development by the US Department of Defense DARPA since 2011, one would have expected that all of the necessary preclinical testing would have been completed before Operation Warp Speed was announced.  The 2015 FDA guidance on Gene Product Shedding Studies with gene therapies, which are defined as “all products that exert their effects by transcription and/or translation of transferred genetic material and/or by integration into the host genome and that are administered in the form of nucleic acids, viruses or genetically modified microorganisms”.[i]

By this statement mRNA vaccines are indeed gene therapy products and should have been submitted to these excretion studies by DARPA funded researchers long ago.[ii]  Sadly, these careful development steps were skipped from the beginning in our military-style vaccine development program, and now the public is grappling with the issue of nucleic acid and Spike protein shedding as a potential concern among those who have worked so hard to remain healthy and free of COVID-19 vaccination.

In the most comprehensive paper on shedding thus far, former Inserm researcher Dr. Helene Banoun has published the basis for which there is great likelihood that mRNA either on lipid nanoparticles or within exosomes is circulatory in blood and is secreted in every body secretion that would naturally expect to contain particles of this size.[iii]

Epoch Times Photo

Fertig et al, have shown mRNA is circulatory in blood for at least two weeks with no reduction in concentration out to that time point.[iv] Likewise, Hanna et al, have found mRNA within breast milk.[v] Less data exist on Spike protein shedding but it is not a far stretch to understand this is well within the realm of reality.

The pivotal questions are:

1) for how long is a recently vaccinated person at risk to shed on to others?

2) can shed mRNA be taken up by the recipient and begin to produce Spike protein just like vaccination?

3) can shed Spike protein cause disease as it does in the vaccinated (e.g. myocarditis, blood clots, etc.)?

It’s time for the lapses by DOD BARDA and NIH BARDA, to immediately be corrected by those agencies funding the necessary independent shedding studies to ensure the public safety of those who wisely deferred on COVID-19 vaccination.  This research should preferably be conducted while the current products are paused and taken off to market to protect others at risk.  Until then, we simply cannot answer these questions for those who sacrificed so much to remain “pure-blood.”

Reposted from the author’s Substack


[i] Design and Analysis of Shedding Studies for Virus or Bacteria-Based Gene Therapy and Oncolytic Products Guidance for Industry AUGUST 2015

[ii] Department of Defense Driving Mass Vaccination While FDA and Vaccine Companies are Powerless to Stop It by Dr. Peter McCullough | Nov 8, 2022 | Health, Military, Politics,

[iii] Current state of knowledge on the excretion of mRNA and spike produced by anti-COVID-19 mRNA vaccines; possibility of contamination of the entourage of those vaccinated by these products by Helene Banoun Infectious Diseases Research 2022;3(4):22. https://doi.org/10.53388/IDR20221125022

[iv] Fertig TE, Chitoiu L, Marta DS, Ionescu VS, Cismasiu VB, Radu E, Angheluta G, Dobre M, Serbanescu A, Hinescu ME, Gherghiceanu M. Vaccine mRNA Can Be Detected in Blood at 15 Days Post-Vaccination. Biomedicines. 2022 Jun 28;10(7):1538. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines10071538. PMID: 35884842; PMCID: PMC9313234.

[v] Hanna N, Heffes-Doon A, Lin X, et al. Detection of Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Human Breast Milk. JAMA Pediatr. Published online September 26, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.3581

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. Peter A. McCullough

Dr. Peter A. McCullough is a practicing internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist managing the cardiovascular complications of both the viral infection and the injuries developing after the COVID-19 vaccine in Dallas TX, USA. He has dozens of peer-reviewed publications on the infection, multiple US and State Senate testimonies, and has commented extensively on the medical response to the COVID-19 crisis in TheHill, America Out Loud, NewsMax, and on FOX NEWS Channel.
John Leake

John Leake   studied history and philosophy with Roger Scruton at Boston University. He then went to Vienna, Austria on a graduate school scholarship and ended up living in the city for over a decade, working as a freelance writer and translator. He is a true crime writer with a lifelong interest in medical history and forensic medicine.


 Arizona Attorney General Candidate Sues Over Midterm Election Results

By Zachary Stieber
November 23, 2022 Updated: November 23, 2022

A Republican candidate for Arizona’s attorney general position on Nov. 22 sued his opponent and a slew of election officials, including officials in Maricopa County, alleging that widespread “errors and inaccuracies” caused voter disenfranchisement.

Officials in at least 15 counties have “caused the unlawful denial of the franchise to certain qualified electors, erroneously tallied certain ballots, and included for tabulation in the canvass certain illegal votes in connection with the election for the office of Arizona Attorney General,” Abe Hamadeh, the candidate, said in the complaint.

That includes Maricopa County officials improperly disqualifying ballots cast by people who, as a direct result of poll worker errors, were incorrectly listed as voting previously in the midterm election, Hamadeh added.

“Immediate judicial intervention is necessary to secure the accuracy of the results of the November 8, 2022 general election, and to ensure that candidate who received the highest number of lawful votes is declared the next Arizona Attorney General,” the complaint states.

The filing was lodged in Maricopa County court.

The Arizona attorney general race is headed to a recount, according to Katie Hobbs, the state’s secretary of state, due to the slim margin separating Hamadeh from Democrat candidate Kris Mayes.

Mayes is leading by just 510 votes out of more than 2.5 million cast, according to an unofficial tally from Hobbs’s office.

Mayes and Hobbs, who were named as defendants in the new suit, did not respond to requests for comment. A Maricopa County spokesperson did not immediately return an inquiry.

Problems

Maricopa County officials have acknowledged problems with tabulation equipment, saying the problem affected 30 percent of all voting centers in the county and an estimated 17,000 ballots.

On election day the officials said that voters could place their ballots in a secure box to be counted later. Other options included “checking out” of the poll site and casting a ballot at another location, or utilizing an early ballot if one was possessed.

Both of the latter options required poll workers to properly list the voter as checking out, or leaving the site without casting a ballot, but some workers “were unaware of the process,” the new complaint alleges.

“This pervasive and systematic error directly and proximately resulted in three recurring scenarios in which qualified electors were unlawfully and unconstitutionally disenfranchised,” it added.

Hamadeh and the Republican National Committee, which joined in the legal action, say that at least 146 voters who should have been checked out and who later went to another location were required to vote using provisional ballots, which they say will not be counted because the voter was erroneously listed as having already voted.

Epoch Times Photo
An election worker gathers tabulated ballots to be boxed inside the Maricopa County Recorders Office in Phoenix. Arizona, on Nov. 10, 2022. (Matt York/AP Photo)

At least 273 other voters who should have been checked out utilized early ballots but those ballots will not count because of the same issue, the Republicans said.

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Gates, a Republican, failed to outline the steps voters had to take if they left the sites at which there were problems in a widely-viewed Election Day video that featured officials acknowledging for the first time the issues with tabulators, the complaint noted. He did not mention checking out but merely said people could “go to a nearby voting center.”

“Chairman Gates’s instructions foreseeably resulted in the disenfranchisement of a significant number of qualified electors who followed his instructions,” it says. “By inducing voters to leave polling locations and then denying-through a consistent and erroneous practice of failing to properly implement ‘check-out’ procedures-these qualified electors their right to duly cast a ballot for tabulation, the Maricopa County Defendants engaged (through their election boards) in cognizable ‘misconduct,’ and wrongfully excluded valid and legally sufficient votes from the canvass line the race for Arizona Attorney General.”

Other Issues

Other issues include officials allegedly violating the law when they sought to verify early ballot signatures.

Officials must, when receiving a mail-in ballot, compare the signature on the envelope containing the ballot with the signature of the voter on record. If the signatures don’t match, the ballot is invalid unless the voter “cures” the problem within three to five days, depending on the type of election.

A number of the ballot envelopes had mismatched signatures but were still counted because county officials determined the signature matched the signature on a different document other than the registration record, which violates state law, the complaint alleges.

The issue happened across multiple counties, the Republicans say.

They also alleged that in the duplication process—triggered when a ballot is too defective to be read by a tabulator—officials incorrectly transcribed some of the selections in the attorney general race, which led to an inaccurate vote count.

“Arizonans demand answers and deserve transparency about the gross incompetence and mismanagement of the General Election by certain election officials. I will not stop fighting until ALL voters receive justice. See you in court,” Hamadeh said in a statement.

Ronna McDaniel, chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, said that the committee was “proud to join in this legal action.”

“Maricopa County’s election failures disenfranchised Arizonans,” she said. “We’re going to court to get the answers voters deserve.”

Zachary Stieber

REPORTER

Epic Message to The Unvaccinated

Epic Message To The Unvaccinated

 

The world is currently going through a mass spiritual awakening. Humanity is realizing and beginning to understand that our world is not as it seems, and physical and metaphysical worlds are inseparable. Perhaps it is time for a greater understanding of God, to expand our concept, not to correct our previous understanding, but to expand our consciousness.   There is only one God, omnipotent, a force of Divine energy encompassing not only our world, but all worlds of the Universe. Perhaps the awakening is necessary to understand God as Infinite Intelligence which includes all life within this world, and extends into all other worlds in the Universe. This Divine Force of Energy is available to all.

It is important not to confuse God with religion or religion with God. Religion was created by man in order to understand the Divine. God exists far beyond all religions, far beyond human intellect, imagination, invention and human corruption. God is beyond comprehension, beyond any definition and beyond our histories and great teachers and the great messengers from God, great spiritual books and testimonies. There is one God, one Creator, the Great Spirit, the Divine Force that rules over the all.

It is interesting to note that science has proven electromagnetic energy is the most plentiful constant energy of our universe. It is a part of all structures living and dead, including the atmosphere. We create electromagnetic energies in the atoms of our living cells, which we enhance by the reaction with the atmospheric energy field. We know this expanded energy field as the human aura. Within this energy we all have the ability to experience the Divine Reality by discovering our true nature.

As energetic beings, our thoughts, feelings and actions generate energy that radiates into the world, as we unknowingly create our reality. Energy has both positive and negative charges. Fear, control, hate, judging others are considered negative. The most positive emotion is Love which includes kindness, compassion, helping others and treating others as you would like to be treated. It is seeing God in everyone and everything. We are all co-creators and that is the paradigm shift of the global spiritual awakening.

Buddha said our lives are products of our mind. What we are today is a result of what we thought yesterday. What we think today influences what happens to us tomorrow. Our entire lives are products of our mind.

Lao Tzu said the world is transformed by those who love all people, just as you love yourself.

Jesus said in the Gospel of the Egyptians, You receive no benefit from loving only those who love you. Great benefits comes from loving those who hate you.

May be an image of tree and text that says 'Ego. complain dishonest sadness selfish Awareness giving forgiving lazy confused jealousy hate procrastinate honesty trust love fake calm hopeless regret motivated stress efficient worried gratitude passionate happy superficial self-center ego bravery joy arrogant greed ignorant anger violent inspired loyal selfless fear proactiver diligent impatient inferiority indecisive indifferent Ioneliness kindness creative responsible confidence supportive peaceful'

An Irreversible Decision; Wisconsin Supreme Court: Ballot Drop Boxes Are Illegal; Dutch Farmers’ Protests; Dropping Vaccines and Here Is The Reason

An Irreversible Decision: Once You’ve Been Vaccinated, You Cannot Become Unvaccinated

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny: “The types of things that this injection does, binding the spike protein to the surface of your cells, making an antibody, which means you’re sensitized to that forever. Once you’ve been vaccinated, it is the mark. You cannot become unvaccinated. This is an irreversible thing.”

“Put your hands in God and not in these pharmaceuticals.”

 

Breaking!!!!

Wisconsin Supreme Court: Ballot Drop Boxes Are Illegal

By Zachary Stieber
July 8, 2022 Updated: July 8, 2022

Drop boxes that enable people to drop off ballots cast by themselves and others are illegal under Wisconsin law, the state’s Supreme Court ruled on July 8.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) in two documents in 2020 said drop boxes can not only be utilized, but that they can be unstaffed and permanent. Further, the agency said “a family member or another person” can drop off a ballot on behalf of a voter.

The guidance was problematic because Wisconsin law states that a voter is the only individual who can deliver their ballot, either in person or via mail, a lawsuit filed last year stated.

In the ruling on Friday, a Wisconsin Supreme Court majority agreed.

“We hold the documents are invalid because ballot drop boxes are illegal under Wisconsin statutes,” Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote in the majority opinion.  “An absentee ballot must be returned by mail or the voter must personally deliver it to the municipal clerk at the clerk’s office or a designated alternate site.”

The decision upheld a circuit court ruling that concluded an elector must “personally mail” his or her ballot and that there are only two lawful methods for casting an absentee ballot. Those are mailing the ballot and delivering it in person.

“Because WEC’s memos conflict with these statutory directives, they are invalid,” Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote in a concurring opinion.

The memos were promulgated by the WEC in response to questions from local election clerks amid the COVID-9 pandemic.

“This decision provides substantial clarity on the legal status of absentee ballot drop boxes and ballot harvesting. While the question of whether an agent may mail an absentee ballot remains open, Wisconsin voters can have confidence that state law, not guidance from the Wisconsin Elections Commission, has the final word on how Wisconsin elections are conducted,” Rick Esenberg, president and counsel for the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, told The Epoch Times in an email.

The institute brought the case.

Dissent

Three justices dissented, including Justice Ann Walsh Bradley.

Writing for the minority, Bradley said a drop box “is a simple and perfectly legal solution to make voting easier, especially in the midst of a global pandemic.”

“But it is apparently a bridge too far for a majority of this court, which once again rejects a practice that would expand voter participation,” she added.

Bradley took issue with allowing two Wisconsin voters to challenge the guidance.

“Taken to its logical conclusion, the majority/lead opinion indicates that any registered voter would seemingly have standing to challenge any election law. The impact of such a broad conception of voter standing is breathtaking and especially acute at a time of increasing, unfounded challenges to election results and election administrators,” she wrote.

Zachary Stieber

REPORTER

Become Ungovernable: Eva Vlaardingerbroek Breaks Down Why the Dutch Farmers’ Protests Are So Pivotal

Become Ungovernable: Eva Vlaardingerbroek Breaks Down Why the Dutch Farmers’ Protests Are So Pivotal

“It’s very clear that the government is not doing this because of a nitrogen crisis, they’re doing this because they want these farmers’ land.”

I am Dropping Vaccines and Here is Why
%d bloggers like this: