One Nation Under Blackmail

  • Organized crime fused with intelligence agencies during World War II, forming the precursor of the CIA — the Office of Strategic Services (OSS)

  • The web of corruption grew from there, as criminal factions and intelligence agencies developed a symbiotic relationship using blackmail as a tool to achieve their goals

  • There’s evidence that the fusion of organized crime and government occurred even before what was formally termed Operation Underworld, beginning with the Democratic party in New York City, which was entwined with organized crime in the early 20th century

  • It’s not just about money, although wealth is certainly part of it; it’s about power and control, which those involved, including Jeffrey Epstein, would stop at nothing to achieve

  • Webb explains her reasons for believing Epstein won’t be replaced with a cadre of new blackmailers; thanks to modern surveillance technology, they can find blackmail material on anyone without any help

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement

Investigative journalist Whitney Webb spoke with The Jimmy Dore Show about her book, “One Nation Under Blackmail: The Sordid Union Between Intelligence and Crime That Gave Rise to Jeffrey Epstein.” The book is so long — and packed with so many incredible details and references — that it was split into two volumes.

When you get into this fascinating read, you learn that organized crime fused with intelligence agencies during World War II, forming the precursor of the CIA — the Office of Strategic Services (OSS).

The web of corruption grew from there, as criminal factions and intelligence agencies developed a symbiotic relationship using blackmail as a tool to achieve their individual ends. It’s not just about money, although wealth is certainly part of it. It’s about power and control, which those involved, including Jeffrey Epstein, would stop at nothing to achieve.

When I interviewed Webb in 2022, she started at the beginning, going back to World War II, detailing the connections between the intelligence community in the U.S. and organized crime. There was a decentralized network of different organized crime groups operating in the U.S. in the early 20th century. It was known as the national crime syndicate. Webb told Dore:1

“Historically, organized crime in the U.S. — most people are probably familiar with it because of Hollywood — tended to be an ethnic enclave. So you’d have Irish organized crime, the Jewish mob, the Italian mafia and so on. The national crime syndicate broke down those silos and brought these different groups together. That made them a lot more successful.”

According to Webb, the main people behind this were Meyer Lansky, representing the Jewish mob, and Lucky Luciano of the Italian mafia. The pair formally teamed up with the Office of Naval Intelligence and the OSS during World War II.

“OSS is the precursor to the CIA,” Webb said, “and this was justified as necessary because it was the war, right? So a wartime necessity justification.” Webb continued:2

“Then the war ends and the intelligence apparatus of the U.S. and these mob guys realize they have a lot in common and they work really well together. So that’s why in the ’60s and ’50s you see a lot of people involved in assassination stuff for the CIA … you see a lot of mob guys around, for example. There’s a lot of other examples of them interacting on and off over the years.”

From there, it expanded into shadow banking, finance and the world of corporate power as well “and just really became out of control,” Webb said.3 This was a worldwide effort, however, not one contained to the U.S.

“The Israeli intelligence got involved in this developing power nexus,” she continued, “because the Jewish mob side of the national crime syndicate was heavily involved in the arming of the Haganah [a paramilitary group] and the precursor to the IDF [Israel Defense Forces]. So, basically, by the time the state of Israel is created, these alliances are part of its national security state from the off.”4

Webb states there’s evidence that the fusion of organized crime and government occurred even before what was formally termed Operation Underworld, beginning with the Democratic party in New York City, which was entwined with organized crime in the early 20th century. The mob had taken over most of the unions, which means they had also largely taken over the Democratic party.

Later it expanded to the Republican party as well, but initially power consolidation began in New York, including with the political machine Tammany Hall. Infamous New York described it this way:5

“Organized, politically connected and deadly, by the 1870s the gangs of New York had metastasized from leaderless hordes of criminals of the Civil War era into a cancerous pox, directed and controlled by New York’s political machine, Tammany Hall. With names like the Dead Rabbits, the Whyos, the Monk Eastmans, and the Five Pointers, gangs became a hallmark of New York politics in the early 20th Century.”

One theme that pops up repeatedly in Webb’s book is the use of sexual blackmail in various scandals in U.S. history. She ties it back to Jeffrey Epstein, who, she says, is not an anomaly with behavior exclusive to him:6

“This is a type of activity that has been done over and over again in our political system … It’s a type of operation that was perfected first by the mob. So this is something that’s really born out of, in my opinion, this organized crime intelligence team. It’s been going on for an excessive amount of time at this point.”

J. Edgar Hoover, who led the FBI from 1924 to 1972 and was the top law enforcement official in the U.S., was sexually blackmailed by the mob in the ’30s, Webb said, which is why he didn’t go after organized crime:7

“The sexual blackmail operation that entrapped him [Hoover] also intimately involved a man named Roy Cohn, who was best known as Donald Trump’s mentor. And the two of them, along with the mob-linked businessman named Lewis Rosenstiel, were seen engaging in sexual blackmail operations themselves. But, again, Hoover and Cohn only joined that after they had been entrapped — and this involved minors.”

Scandals involving sexual blackmail are numerous in U.S. political history. Webb rattles off several, including the page boy scandal in 1982, where congressmen were caught engaging in sex with underage Congressional pages, as well as the Franklin Scandal, a nationwide child-trafficking and pedophilia ring. The most prominent modern-day scandal, however, involves Epstein.

Epstein, while dismissed as a simple sex criminal, was far more instrumental to the globalist cabal than it first appears. In addition to being a mastermind at shadow banking and illicit finance, he engaged in major financial crimes and had ties to many powerful people, from Bill Clinton, Bill Gates and Donald Trump to the CIA, which Webb details in her book:8

“In my book I talk about how, in my opinion, Jeffrey Epstein was involved in two parallel operations of sex trafficking. So there’s the one that everyone knows about — the underage exploited girls — but then there’s these women that he invested a lot of time in when they’re minors, then funds their education and what have you over time. He developed them as assets and then married them off to his powerful friends.”

Webb also delves into Epstein’s ties to Bill Gates. While mainstream media narrative states that Epstein and Gates didn’t meet until 2011, Webb says that’s not true:9

“There’s mainstream media articles from 2001 saying that Jeffrey Epstein made all his money from his business connections — to three men — and those three men are Leslie Wexner [former owner of Victoria’s Secret], Donald Trump and the third one is Bill Gates.”

One example of the deep connection that actually existed between Epstein and Gates involves Melanie Walker, who is also, by the way, involved with the World Economic Forum:10 11

“She was recruited by Epstein in 1992, allegedly as a Victoria’s Secret model, but there’s no evidence she ever actually modeled for Victoria’s Secret. He apparently was funding her education, hires her as his science adviser in the late ’90s and then a couple years after that, in the early 2000s, she becomes the science adviser to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

So if you’re going to apply to be science adviser to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and your CV says my most recent experience is being the science adviser to Jeffrey Epstein, and you’re Bill Gates hiring your top science adviser, you would have to know who Jeffrey Epstein is and what kind of science he’s into.”

Webb believes Gates is lying about his ties to Epstein not only to protect himself but also to protect Microsoft. “You also have, in the ’90s, Jeffrey Epstein flying around on planes to official Microsoft functions in Russia, apparently giving women to the chief technology officer who was very close to Bill Gates … all sorts of stuff going on there with Epstein and Microsoft,” Webb explained.12

From Epstein’s death to the death of Ghislaine Maxwell’s father Robert, many “suicides” appear to be tied back to the global cabal and intelligence agencies attempting to hide incriminating information. One such death is that of Mark Middleton, special assistant to the chief of staff at the Clinton White House, who was responsible for setting up Epstein’s visits to the White House:13

“Jeffrey Epstein had 15 meetings in about a year with a guy named Mark Middleton. Mark Middleton died earlier this year with an extension cord around his neck and a shotgun wound to the chest in Little Rock, Arkansas, which was ruled a suicide.

Here’s the other thing. Mark Middleton was so scandalous for what he was doing at the same time Jeffrey Epstein was meeting with him that he was being investigated by Congress, and the only reason that investigation never finished is because the first time George W. Bush — the subsequent president — invoked executive privilege was to keep documents about Mark Middleton from being made available to Congress.

Mark Middleton was not a big fish, you would think, at the White House. He was just an aide to the chief of staff to Bill Clinton. So what was going on with Mark Middleton there?

Well, it’s mostly remembered as this scandal in 1996 called The Campaign Finance Scandal of ’96. It’s related to the fundraising of the DNC for Clinton’s re-election campaign, but a lot of what was going on is that foreign citizens were laundering campaign contributions, filling DNC coffers, but a lot of it was targeting Ron Brown.”

Ron Brown, Clinton’s secretary of commerce, also died under mysterious circumstances:14

“A lot of what was going on there were efforts to change Commerce Department policy so that a lot of very sensitive military technology could be sent to adversary nations when that was normally not allowed.

And some of the people at the center of this were people like Lockheed Martin’s CEO, who actually later goes on to create InQTel for the CIA. And you have a guy named Bernard Schwartz that runs a race to run Loral Space. He was one of Biden’s biggest donors in 2020.

So basically you have this huge effort to undermine the Commerce Department and buy off Ron Brown. Ron Brown at some point — as all of this kept going on pieces of it began to unravel — he agreed to cooperate with investigators. Not long after that he was unexpectedly invited to go on a trade mission to Croatia, and the plane crashes because of a supposedly aging navigational system.

Everyone on the plane dies except for a flight attendant that apparently walked away but then when she arrived at the hospital in a military helicopter, she arrived with a broken neck. Ron Brown’s body was so odd when it was discovered that people in Congress called for it to be investigated because he appeared to have a bullet wound in the skull not caused by a plane crash.”

In her book, Webb explains her reasons for believing Epstein won’t be replaced with a cadre of new blackmailers. They don’t need people like him anymore, thanks to modern surveillance technology.

They can access everything, all your accounts, cameras, phones, microphones, surveillance cameras, you name it. They can find blackmail material on anyone these days. Of course, this tech is also being used to enslave and control the rest of us. They’re counting on you taking your cellphone with you everywhere, and adopting other forms of digital control, like vaccine passports and central bank digital currencies.

You don’t have to volunteer to give this information and give up your control, however. You can opt out. Stay local and build connections in your community. Webb explained:

“What we need are regular people to take responsibility. So many of us are looking for the good guy versus the bad guy on the level of nation state leadership. No. The good guys are just the regular people like you and me, and the bad guys are the people most often at the top that have stomped on heads and clawed their way to the heights of power, regardless of what nation state you’re talking about.

It’s among regular people where you will find the ‘good guys’ you’re looking for and it’s time for those people to come together and say ‘Enough!’ And we really can do it. It just is about taking personal responsibility … We have to take our power back and that starts on an individual level.”

To learn more, be sure to pick up a copy of, “One Nation Under Blackmail: The Sordid Union Between Intelligence and Crime That Gave Rise to Jeffrey Epstein.” If you would like to view more of the interviews that Webb did for this book, this page on her site has links to all the many podcasts she has done about this book.

Subscribe to Mercola Newsletter

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

The Right To Be Murdered: Is Euthanasia the New Buzzword?

By: Tessa Lena

  • A paraplegic former Canadian military member testified in Canadian Parliament that a Veterans Affairs Canada caseworker offered her the opportunity for a medically assisted death — after she complained about delays having a wheelchair lift installed in her home

  • Canada is moving in leaps in bounds in making assisted suicide easy, especially if you are poor

  • In Belgium, a 23-year-old woman was euthanized on the grounds of “PTSD”; her neurologist tried to fight for her but her mother was “supportive”

  • In some countries, it is legal to euthanize kids

  • In the U.S., a well-funded nonprofit called “Death with Dignity” has been marketing assisted suicide and pushing for state legislation to make medical suicide easy and “accessible” to all — and pressuring physicians to go along

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement

We are in a very strange place. We are in a place where up is down, where shoddy gene therapy is safe and effective, and where suicide, now, is a social service. And rules for “merciful killing” are written by the people who, at best, are clueless about spiritual matters, and at worst, know exactly what they are doing.

Due to the gravity of the topic, I want to choose words wisely. Dying is sacred. Dying, just like birth, is an ultimate communion with the spirit. For that matter, everything in-between is also communion with the spirit — but birth and death are very special transitions. And they need to — absolutely need to — be revered.

By trivializing death and introducing this absurd “suicide as a service” concept — like we can be mechanically recycled — we are taking the spark out of who we are as human beings. On my end, I am appalled and indignant, and I am registering my passionate and total objection to allowing spiritually clueless (or deliberately cruel) people to have any say in the matter of dying.

It is hard enough to maneuver situations when family members have to make a tough decision to stop life support for their loved ones who are only alive thanks to being hooked onto devices. But being conditioned to normalize assisted suicide based on arbitrary criteria, including loosely defined “mental illness”?! How far from here to what the German Nazi did to the disabled children?

Recently, a retired Army Corporal Christine Gauthier, who had competed for Canada at the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Paralympics, testified in Canadian Parliament that a Veterans Affairs Canada caseworker offered her the opportunity for a medically assisted death — and even offered to provide the equipment — after she complained about delays having a wheelchair lift installed in her home.

Earlier this year, Shanti De Corte, a 23-year-old woman in Belgium, was euthanized after “unsuccessful” psychiatric treatment of PTSD that, according to the media, the poor woman had acquired after escaping from the site of the Brussels airport bombing. Her neurologist fought for her life but the woman’s mother “supported” Shanti in her decision to stop living. To my senses, this sounds more like a plot by Agatha Christie than a case of mercy.

Also in Belgium, it is legal to euthanize young children. According to a 2018 Washington Post article, between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2017, Belgian physicians gave lethal injections to three children under 18. The 9-year-old had a brain tumor, the 11-year-old had cystic fibrosis, and the 17-year-old had Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Most of Belgium’s 4,337 euthanasias in 2016-2017 involved adults with cancer. (The population of Belgium in 2017 was 11,419,752.)

In 2017, a member of the euthanasia commission in Belgium resigned in protest because it refused to recommend prosecution after a patient with dementia who had not requested euthanasia was nevertheless put to death at her family’s request.

It seems like euthanasia is a potential treasure for family members with ulterior motives. Some lawyers are pointing that out.

Different sources cite different technical definitions when it comes to “euthanasia,” and there is no complete agreement. The BBC distinguishes between euthanasia, “the act of intentionally ending a life to relieve suffering — for example a lethal injection administered by a doctor,” and assisted suicide. According to the University of Missouri School of Medicine, there are different types of euthanasia:

  • Active euthanasia killing a patient by active means, for example, injecting a patient with a lethal dose of a drug. Sometimes called “aggressive” euthanasia.

  • Passive euthanasia intentionally letting a patient die by withholding artificial life support such as a ventilator or feeding tube.

  • Voluntary euthanasia with the consent of the patient.

  • Involuntary euthanasia without the consent of the patient, for example, if the patient is unconscious and his or her wishes are unknown.

  • Self-administered euthanasia the patient administers the means of death.

  • Other-administered euthanasia a person other than the patient administers the means of death.

  • Assisted the patient administers the means of death but with the assistance of another person, such as a physician.

    There are many possible combinations of the above types, and many types of euthanasia are morally controversial. Some types of euthanasia, such as assisted voluntary forms, are legal in some countries.

  • Mercy-killing The term “mercy-killing” usually refers to active, involuntary or nonvoluntary, other-administered euthanasia. In other words, someone kills a patient without their explicit consent to end the patient’s suffering. Some ethicists think that.

  • Physician-assisted suicide The phrase “physician-assisted suicide” refers to active, voluntary, assisted euthanasia where a physician assists the patient. A physician provides the patient with a means, such as sufficient medication, for the patient to kill him or herself.

Today, laws regarding euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide differ across states and countries. According the Healthline, in the United States, physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in:

  • Washington

  • Oregon

  • California

  • Colorado

  • Montana

  • Vermont

  • Washington, D.C.

  • Hawaii (beginning in 2019)

Additionally, similar legislation was signed in New Jersey in 2019 and in New Mexico in 2021.

Notably, in the spirit of newspeak and “rewriting” biological terms, New Mexico’s law states that terminating one’s life under the law is not suicide. (See N.M. Stat. § 24-7C-8).

Quote: “Nothing in the End-of-Life Options Act shall be construed to authorize a physician or any other person to end an individual’s life by lethal injection, mercy killing or euthanasia. Actions taken in accordance with the End-of-Life Options Act shall not be construed, for any purpose, to constitute suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, mercy killing, homicide or adult abuse under the law.”

Different states have different legal requirements for assisted suicide. In addition to the existing laws, many states currently have physician-assisted suicide measures on legislative ballots. Other states are “improving” their already existing state laws to make taking one’s life as easy as making a telemedicine call. Here are the amendments recently passed in California and Vermont.

California:

One of the craziest things is that in California, it seems to be legal to encourage suicide after bill AB282, signed by Governor Brown in 2018, amended the California penal code to “prohibit a person whose actions are compliant with the End of Life Option Act from being prosecuted for deliberately aiding, advising, or encouraging suicide.”

I am just imagining. You visit a doctor, complain about being in pain or being depressed, and the doctor says: “Sounds tough, man, have you maybe considered killing yourself?” Let me ask again: how far from this legislation to what the German Nazi did? A quote from the Death with Dignity website about California laws:

Senator Susan Eggman (D) introduces an amendment to California’s law, End of Life, SB380. Effective beginning January 1, 2022, the amendment:

  • Reduces the waiting period between the 1st and 2nd oral request from 15 days to 48 hours;

  • Eliminates the final attestation form;

  • Requires physicians who cannot or will not support patient requests to tell the patient they will not support them, document the patient’s request and provider’s notice of rejection in the patient’s medical record, and transfer the relevant medical record upon request;

  • Prohibits a health care provider or health care entity from engaging in false, misleading, or deceptive practices relating to their willingness to qualify an individual or provide a prescription for an aid-in-dying medication to a qualified individual;

  • Requires health care entities to post their current policy regarding medical aid in dying on their internet website;

  • Extends the law’s repeal clause to January 1, 2031.

Vermont:

Governor Phil Scott signs S.74, an amendment to the Patient Choice and Control at End of Life Act into law on April 27, 2022. This amendment:

  • Removes the requirement that medication requests and an examination by the physician be done in person.

  • Removes the requirement that the physician must wait at least 48 hours after the occurrence of certain required events before writing the prescription.

  • Extends immunities to any person who acts in good faith compliance with the provisions of the law.

For a detailed look at U.S. state laws, please check out this list. For a map of the “Death with Dignity” movement in the United States, please see that same Death with Dignity website I cited before. I looked up my state of New York, and wow, check this out their campaign!

“It’s time to pass New York’s Medical Aid in Dying Act and expand the right to Death with Dignity to over 20 million New Yorkers. Death with Dignity laws have been proven effective at improving healthcare quality at the end of life. People travel from all over the world to access New York’s doctors and hospitals. New Yorkers shouldn’t have to leave the state to receive the care they need at the end of life.”

And of course, by “care” they mean being killed. It’s like when the mob says they will take care of you. It’s that kind of care! What a treasure for the relatives of well-off folks in weak health whom they want dead! Have the proponents of these laws thought of this? I bet they have.

In the United States, the nonprofit I referred to earlier seems to be coordinating the push on a national level, and somebody is paying them for doing that.

Death with Dignity National Center is a “501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that focuses on public education and legal defense. Death with Dignity provides targeted education to a wide variety of groups who have an interest in death with dignity laws based on Oregon’s landmark Death with Dignity Act, including physicians, lawyers, medical students, elected officials, members of the media, college students, and church officials.”

According to Action Network, they are a rather well-funded nonprofit. Their statements and reports are also listed on their website. The listed CEO salary for 2021 was over one hundred thousand dollars, which was also noted by Celia Farber.

Death with Dignity Political Fund is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization that acts as the political arm of the National Center. The Fund drafts death with dignity laws based on the Oregon model and campaigns, lobbies, and advocates for death with dignity legislation in the states that lack it.

On a side note, in Australia, there seems to be a nonprofit organization also called “Dying with Dignity Act.” Their stated purpose is to campaign for legislation that would “enable citizens to have assistance to die.”

Somebody is really paying them to “destigmatize” voluntary departure of carbon forms from this world. Industrial recycling next?

What’s striking is the language surrounding this. Somebody in the dark marketing halls decided to insert “dignity” into euthanasia and suicide and to make it sound sweet.

Here is the exact brain-twist they are trying to pull off: They are attempting to redefine the natural death, the noninvasive trajectory of events, as an active act of “torturing” loved ones — and simultaneously, they are trying to redefine the active, invasive act of “helping” somebody die before their time as “honoring their human rights.” Up is down, and peace is war!

Philosophically, I don’t want to opine on this very grave theme beyond saying that based on what know, suicide is a horrible idea no matter how bad the suffering may be. Why?

Because, based on the knowledge systems in different cultures, across the world, attempting to transition to another world before one’s time breaks foundational natural laws and thus, comes with suffering that greatly exceeds any suffering one may experience on Earth. That is my belief, and anyone is free to choose their own view of the world.

On my end, I think it’s prudent to go the natural route and not take the chance of making things worse. One may argue scholastically that medicine is also interfering with the natural way. I think it’s a different thing. Medicine supports life, it supports staying in the dimension that we know.

Death is a more mysterious thing, and if the goal is to suffer less, then it’s best to stay in a place we more or less understand until it’s truly our time to go. We are a part of a bigger puzzle in this universe, and it’s wise and practical to respect the spiritual laws.

On the website of the Death with Dignity National Center, there is a page titled, Our Common Mission: Death with Dignity in Times of Coronavirus (COVID-19) Crisis. For a second I thought, maybe they have found some decency and said something in favor of actual death with dignity, as in, not imprisoning people in hospitals against their will and not preventing the family members from entering the hospitals?

No, it’s not that kind of dignity that they promote. Not the real kind. Shame on them. No really, shame on them!

Outside the United States, physician-assisted suicide is legal in:

  • Switzerland

  • Germany

  • Japan

Euthanasia, including physician-assisted suicide, is legal in several countries, including:

  • the Netherlands

  • Belgium

  • Luxembourg

  • Colombia

  • Canada

As of recent, Canada, has been making the headlines for new related to “medical assistance in dying” (MAID). I wrote about it earlier this year. And here is a quote from the Canadian government website talking about MAID:

On March 17, 2021, the Government of Canada announced that changes to Canada’s medical assistance in dying (MAID) law are officially in force. The new law includes changes to eligibility, procedural safeguards, and the framework for the federal government’s data collection and reporting regime.

Who is eligible for medical assistance in dying?

New changes to the legislation have allowed a broader group of people to be eligible to request and receive MAID. These changes came into effect on March 17, 2021.

In order to be eligible for medical assistance in dying, you must meet all of the following criteria. You must:

  • be eligible for health services funded by the federal government, or a province or territory (or during the applicable minimum period of residence or waiting period for eligibility)

  • be at least 18 years old and mentally competent. This means being capable of making health care decisions for yourself

  • have a grievous and irremediable medical condition

  • make a voluntary request for MAID that is not the result of outside pressure or influence

  • give informed consent to receive MAID

Grievous and irremediable medical condition.

To be considered as having a grievous and irremediable medical condition, you must meet all of the following criteria. You must:

  • have a serious illness, disease or disability (excluding a mental illness until March 17, 2023)

  • be in an advanced state of decline that cannot be reversed

  • experience unbearable physical or mental suffering from your illness, disease, disability or state of decline that cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable

You do not need to have a fatal or terminal condition to be eligible for medical assistance in dying.

Canadians whose only medical condition is a mental illness, and who otherwise meet all eligibility criteria, will not be eligible for MAID until March 17, 2023 (see About mental illness and MAID).

Earlier this year, the Spectator published an enlightening article titled, “Why is Canada euthanizing the poor?” Quote:

“Since last year, Canadian law, in all its majesty, has allowed both the rich as well as the poor to kill themselves if they are too poor to continue living with dignity. In fact, the ever-generous Canadian state will even pay for their deaths. What it will not do is spend money to allow them to live instead of killing themselves.”

“A man with a neurodegenerative disease testified to Parliament that nurses and a medical ethicist at a hospital tried to coerce him into killing himself by threatening to bankrupt him with extra costs or by kicking him out of the hospital, and by withholding water from him for 20 days.”

“Since then, things have only gotten worse. A woman in Ontario was forced into euthanasia because her housing benefits did not allow her to get better housing which didn’t aggravate her crippling allergies. Another disabled woman applied to die because she ‘simply cannot afford to keep on living’. Another sought euthanasia because Covid-related debt left her unable to pay for the treatment which kept her chronic pain bearable.”

“Despite the Canadian government’s insistence that assisted suicide is all about individual autonomy, it has also kept an eye on its fiscal advantages.

Even before Bill C-7 entered into force, the country’s Parliamentary Budget Officer published a report about the cost savings it would create: whereas the old MAID regime saved $86.9 million per year — a ‘net cost reduction’, in the sterile words of the report — Bill C-7 would create additional net savings of $62 million per year.

Healthcare, particular for those suffering from chronic conditions, is expensive; but assisted suicide only costs the taxpayer $2,327 per ‘case’.”

According to the Globe Post, a number of European countries are currently practicing euthanasia and/or assisted suicide.

The Netherlands legalized active euthanasia in 2002. Patients must be lucid and experiencing unbearable suffering from a condition diagnosed as incurable by at least two doctors.

In 2020, “the country’s highest court ruled that doctors should be able to conduct assisted suicides on patients with severe dementia without fear of prosecution, even if the patient no longer expressed an explicit wish to die.”

The Netherlands also made euthanasia legal for terminally ill children aged between one and twelve.

Belgium lifted restrictions on euthanasia in 2002 for patients facing constant, unbearable and untreatable physical or psychological suffering. They must be aged 18 or over and request termination of life in a voluntary, reasoned and repeated manner, free from coercion.

In 2014 Belgium became the first country to authorize children to request euthanasia if they suffer a terminal disease and understand the consequences of the act.

In Luxembourg, a bill legalizing euthanasia in certain terminal cases was approved in 2009.

Switzerland allows assisted suicide with patients administering a lethal dose of medication themselves. It does not allow active, direct euthanasia by a third party but tolerates the provision of substances to relieve suffering, even if death is a consequence.

Spanish MPs voted through a law allowing euthanasia in March 2021 under strict conditions so that terminally ill or gravely injured patients can end their suffering. It comes into force in June.

In 2021, Portugal’s top court rejected a law decriminalizing euthanasia that had been approved by parliament in January of the same year. The bill is currently under constitutional review.

Italy’s Constitutional Court ruled in 2019 that it was not always a crime to help someone in “intolerable suffering” commit suicide. Halting medical procedures that maintain life, called passive euthanasia, is also legal.

In France, a 2005 law legalized passive euthanasia as a “right to die.” A 2016 law allows doctors to couple this with “deep and continuous sedation” for terminally ill patients, while keeping euthanasia and assisted suicide illegal up to now.

In September of this year, “French President Emmanuel Macron announced a national debate on the broadening of end-of-life options, including exploring the possibility of legalizing assisted suicide, with the aim of implementing changes” in 2023.

Sweden authorized passive euthanasia in 2010. Ireland recognizes the “right to die.”

According to the Globe Post, Britain has allowed medical personnel to halt life-preserving treatment in certain cases since 2002. Prosecution of those who have helped close relatives to die after they have clearly expressed the desire to end their lives has receded since 2010.

In both Austria and Germany, passive euthanasia is permitted if requested by patients. Austria’s constitutional court ruled in October 2021 the country was violating fundamental rights in making assisted suicide illegal and ordered the government to lift the ban.

It has been reported that in Germany, a person seeking to be euthanized needs to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

It is very hard to talk about this. I am using dry language so as not to scream. In reality, I am screaming as I am writing this. How did we get to this point?!! In 2018, Pediatrics journal published an article titled, “Should Pediatric Euthanasia be Legalized?” The article is written in the form of a debate:

“Voluntary active euthanasia for adults at their explicit request has been legal in Belgium and the Netherlands since 2002. In those countries, acceptance of the practice for adults has been followed by acceptance of the practice for children. Opponents of euthanasia see this as a dangerous slippery slope.

Proponents argue that euthanasia is sometimes ethically appropriate for minors and that, with proper safeguards, it should be legally available in appropriate circumstances for patients at any age. In this Ethics Rounds, we asked philosophers from the United States and the Netherlands, and a Dutch pediatrician, to discuss the ethics of legalizing euthanasia for children.”

That same year, the Journal of Medical Ethics published an article titled, “Medical Assistance in Dying at a paediatric hospital:”

“While MAID is currently available to capable patients in Canada who are 18 years or older — a small but important subsection of the population our hospital serves — we write our policy with an eye to the near future when capable young people may gain access to MAID.

We propose that an opportunity exists for MAID-providing institutions to reduce social stigma surrounding this practice [!!!], but not without potentially serious consequences for practitioners and institutions themselves. Thus, this paper is intended as a road map through the still-emerging legal and ethical landscape of paediatric MAID.”

That’s some ethics alright.

Calm concluding words are hard. The horror needs to stop. It’s a war on life, and the battle requires strength. This “social service” death conveyor, wrapped in fake “compassion” (as if the Machine can feel) is betrayal of us all.

That is what the slain COVID patients in hospitals went through, alone, when they were effectively imprisoned, sedated, denied good treatments and medially murdered, without family members around. That is where we are at.

I pray that the sadistic people, bringing this horror film to reality for a buck, are individually exposed, and that their influence is fully eliminated from our lives. We are not theirs.

To find more of Tessa Lena’s work, be sure to check out her bio, Tessa Fights Robots.

Subscribe to Mercola Newsletter

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

Experts Fear Flame Retardants Are Triggering a Health Crisis

  • After one class of fire retardants was banned, another equally dangerous class was added to consumer products; both are associated with a reduction in IQ as well as fertility issues and a potential increased risk of diabetes

  • One research team refers to it as a “regrettable substitution” and calls for safety evaluation of chemicals based on class

  • Fire retardants, which are regulated, are found in car seats, infant mattresses and fabric blinds, yet the EPA phased out one class due to evidence of liver, thyroid and neurodevelopmental toxicity in children

  • A team of scientists is concerned that manufacturers are programming children for diabetes, finding that one class of fire retardants permanently alters liver function and increases insulin resistance

  • Help reduce your exposure by washing your hands before eating, using a vacuum with a HEPA filter, dusting with a damp cloth and seeking products without flame retardants

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement

As discussed in this short video by Green Science Policy Institute, flame retardants are one of the six classes or families of chemicals that are found in consumer products and negatively affect health. The classes of concern include highly fluorinated products, antimicrobials, bisphenols and phthalates, some solvents, specific metals and flame retardants.

One simple and effective way to reduce your exposure is to practice regular hand-washing. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, you can reduce your child’s exposure to flame retardant chemicals using simple hand-washing techniques. The chemicals are added to several consumer products with the intent to make them less prone to burn and to burn more slowly if and when they do.

Unfortunately, while the intent is good, the chemicals are ineffective. Additionally, they create a health burden as they leach from products and land in household dust. The EPA advises parents to have their children wash their hands frequently to reduce the health risks that are associated with exposure.

Until 2004,1 the primary flame retarded chemicals were from a family of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), consisting of 209 possible brominated substances. By 2013, octaBDEs, used for business equipment made of plastic, were voluntarily withdrawn. Since this class of chemicals has a low water solubility it typically binds to sediment, such as soil and dust.

The replacement flame retardants, namely organophosphorus compounds, appear to have some of the same health risks and behave in much the same way in the environment as the predecessor class of PBDEs.2 This new class of fire retardants was first found in surface sediment from the Pacific to the Arctic oceans in 2010.3

PBDEs were phased out as the EPA4 expressed a growing concern over the ability of the chemicals to bioaccumulate and persist in the environment. As traces were found in human blood and breastmilk, and evidence mounted the chemicals triggered liver, thyroid and neurodevelopmental toxicity, the EPA issued a rule regulating the phase-out of two of the most common PBDEs.

In a meta-analysis study published in Environmental Science and Technology Letters,5 researchers posed the question of whether the use of organophosphate ester flame retardants (OPFRs), the replacement for PBDEs, was a better choice.

They compared OPFRs with PBDEs across a range of properties with regard to the interaction in the environment and evidence of levels measured indoors, among the general population and evidence of adverse health effects. They found the OPFRs are in the environment at higher concentration than PBDEs.6

Compounding the impact of OPFRs is the bioaccumulation and poor degradation of PBDEs in the environment. The researchers wrote:7

“The time has come for manufacturers, with the help of the scientific community, to stop moving from the use of one family of harmful chemicals to the next and to instead find innovative ways to reduce both fire hazard and the use of hazardous chemicals.”

Based on the number of dangerous flame retardants currently in use and those remaining in the environment, both indoors and outside, the researchers are calling for evaluation of chemicals based on classification and not on an individual basis.8 They concluded:

“Here we have shown that, as with PBDEs in the past, OPFRs are now being used in large volumes, are sufficiently persistent to be detected globally, present health hazards, and may cause harm to humans, especially children, at current exposure levels. Given the large number of OPFRs on the market, obtaining the level of evidence a government often requires to regulate each compound would prove to be expensive and lengthy.”

In a review 100 pure reviewed studies, the scientists found OPFRs are often at levels 10 to 100 times higher in the water, air and dust than were PBDEs. Additionally, they were also found in nearly every person who participated in research studies.

In several studies data showed they were at levels high enough to negatively affect healthy brain development in children and fertility in adults. It was expected OPFRs would be less persistent then PBDEs in the environment. However, predicting their presence is difficult to measure based on the compounds’ physical and chemical properties.

OPFRs do have a higher vapor pressure and shorter half-life, which led experts to believe they would travel shorter distances and have lower concentrations in the environment. However, they are more soluble and can persist in water. Multiple measurements throughout the world have demonstrated concentrations higher than PBDEs from urban areas to remote areas of the North and South poles.

Measurements have also confirmed an abundance of OPFRs in locations not explained by local release. In addition to the burden on the environment, the researchers found evidence of high exposure to OPFRs as compared to PBDEs that appeared to originate from indoor air, food and house dust.

OPFRs are heavily used in the electronic industry and are detected at higher levels in indoor air. They are also used in consumer and construction plastics. Using OPFRs was identified by the researchers as a “regrettable substitution,” or a replacement that lacked sufficient toxicity testing for a chemical being phased out as a known hazardous material.9

“Regrettable substitution occurs because of the difficulty of changing industrial processes and a lack of toxicological information, causing manufacturers to replace a phased-out chemical with a “drop in” substitute chemical that has a similar structure, function, and potential for harm.”

Although PBDEs are no longer used in manufactured products, those added to consumer products before 2013 are still in use and continue to affect your health. A recently published study10 at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst found perinatal exposure to common flame retardants in permanently reprogramed liver metabolism in a study involving rats.

The researchers found this led to an increased risk of insulin resistance and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease as the mice matured. The team identified a potential mechanism responsible for the effect. They determined the epigenome, or heritable changes in gene expression, was altered with exposure to PBDEs through the umbilical cord and breast milk.

In the study, the females were fed PBDEs to mimic concentrations similar to those found in humans living in urban areas. While the pups were never directly exposed, the researchers found it altered the function of their liver throughout their lifetime. One researcher wrote:

“Normally when you remove the stressor, the organ will recover. But in this case, it’s not recovering. Epigenetic changes can persist in a row of cellular divisions and can even propagate through generations.”

Based on their findings, the team garnered funding from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to test their hypothesis in humans. They believe this may link exposure from flame retardants present in products used from birth through adulthood to an increased risk of diabetes and heart disease.

Although this particular classification of flame retardants is no longer being used in the industry, researchers have found the bioaccumulation and concentration is increasing in human tissue. It may be another 50 years before this exposure begins to decrease.

In the new study the team will use samples from a prospective cohort designed to investigate toxicity in children. Following the same individuals over time they hope to establish a link between exposure levels and changes in liver metabolism. They hypothesize this exposure leads to higher triglycerides during childhood and express a concern for the future health of children.

As Green Science Policy Institute discussed in the video, the chemicals are added to meet flammability regulations, but have made the situation worse as they don’t retard fire and leach from the products into your home and air.

If they were effective, firefighters would be the strongest supporters, but instead are fighting to reduce exposure and impose a ban on all fire retardants.11 The toxic fumes during a fire place the first responders at greater risk of health conditions, including cancer.

The chemicals are known to attach to dust particles. When these particles stick to your hands you can accidently ingest them, they may land in your food or be picked up and consumed by small children and pets. As mentioned in the video, the health cost associated with just one flame retardant, PentaBDE was estimated at $209 billion. Some of the common products flame retardants are found in are:

  • Car seats

  • Paints

  • Wire and cable coating

  • Carpet padding

  • Building insulation

  • Textiles

  • Infant mattresses

  • Television cases

  • Fabric blinds

In other words, they are in nearly every home on the planet. The team of researchers from the featured study looked at epidemiological evidence for both PBDEs and OPFRs. Well-established scientific evidence demonstrates PBDEs are linked to neurodevelopmental issues.

In several in vitro evaluations, OPFRs and PBDEs “appear to have comparable developmental and neurodevelopmental toxicity potential” in processes crucial to neurodevelopment.

Fire retardant chemicals are also found in drinking water and local bodies of water. It is important to seek to reduce your exposure. Consider the options listed below:

  • When purchasing items, ask if there is an option without flame retardants.

  • Look for upholstered furniture with a TB117-2013 label stating the piece doesn’t contain flame retardants

  • To reduce your exposure, clean and dust with a damp cloth to trap the dust, use a vacuum with a hepa filter and wash your hands, especially before eating

  • Avoid purchasing rebonded carpet padding unless sure it doesn’t contain flame retardants

  • When possible, purchase products without flame retardants

Subscribe to Mercola Newsletter

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

Envy much?

Dec 29 • 39M

Eye see your tech is showing….

Open in playerListen on

);

Appears in this episode

Woo, down, dirty, deep WOO

Criminal Malfeasance: Pfizer Knew 275 People Suffered Serious Strokes in the First 90 Days After Vaccine Rollout

Pfizer’s conclusion: “This cumulative case review does not raise new safety issues.”



Seventy-five years. That’s how long Pfizer and the FDA tried to hide the Pfizer documents from public view — long after just about everyone affected is dead. It wasn’t until renowned attorney Aaron Siri led a FOIA case against the FDA that a federal judge ordered the documents to be released in 108 days, the same amount of time it took the FDA to approve the Covid-19 injections.

Within the Pfizer documents is Document 5.3.6 (Post-Marketing Experience), a cumulative analysis of adverse event reports occurring in the 90 days after the public rollout of the Covid-19 mRNA injection. And within that report, 275 people suffered a stroke suspected to be attributed to the vaccine between days 1 to 41; 50% of these occurred within the first 48 hours after injection.

It’s important to note that strokes are life-altering events, which occur “when the blood supply to part of the brain is interrupted or reduced, preventing brain tissue from getting oxygen and nutrients. Brain cells begin to die in minutes.”—Mayoclinic

It’s a medical emergency. And prompt treatment is crucial. “Many stroke survivors experience paralysis on one side of the body or inability to move a specific part of the body.” And “Some stroke survivors may experience trouble using or understanding language (aphasia) or have trouble swallowing liquids or foods (dysphagia).”—thestrokefoundation.org

Image Credit: stroke.org

Sadly, all 300 stroke adverse event reports affecting 275 different patients within Pfizer Document 5.3.6 were classified as “serious.” One in five (61 of the 300) strokes was fatal, 32% did not resolve, 28% had an “unknown” outcome, and three suffered very rare deep brain clots (cerebral venous sinus thrombosis).

Amy Kelly’s full report can be viewed here.

And what was Pfizer’s conclusion? “This cumulative case review does not raise new safety issues.”

“If anything, it’s an underestimate,” argued Dr. Chris Flowers, as he joined DailyClout’s CEO Dr. Naomi Wolf and COO and WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Research Project Director Amy Kelly to discuss the stroke findings from Pfizer Document 5.3.6.

Dr. Chris Flowers, MBBS, FRCR, FSBI, is a retired Associate Professor of Radiology at the University of South Florida and an extraordinary member of the Pfizer documents volunteer team. It was he who broke the story that Pfizer and the FDA knew, months ahead of time, that 35 teens suffered heart damage within a week of receiving the C19 shots before any U.S. government agency issued a press release warning the risks of myopericarditis to parents. He is also an author and a retired scientific paper reviewer for multiple radiology journals.

Dr. Flowers elaborates on the underestimate. “The problem is that there’s a huge number of patients who had a stroke whose resolution or outcome is not known (28%) and not reported, even though they’re supposed to follow this up for two years (another FOIA may be necessary to get that data). And we can’t find the data on these patients. What was their final outcome? By statistical analysis, there’s bound to be more people that have actually died, which will inflate that number.”

“So it could be more than 61 [deaths] out of 275 people who had stroke-like events,” added Dr. Wolf. “Right,” confirmed Dr. Flowers.

Dr. Flowers focuses on the lack of proper safety testing.

“As you know, endlessly on TV, all the pundits, all the bigwigs, they were all telling us we had to get the vaccine, and it was “perfectly safe.” But it’s getting more and more clear, as we spend time going through the documents, that the safety aspects of any vaccine trial were basically ignored. And I found out even more disturbing things coming out of the European Medicines Agency (think of as Europe’s FDA) in that they don’t even require the safety testing. They don’t even require the distribution and excretion of a vaccine to be approved for use in patients.”

Dr. Flowers came to this conclusion from a paper by Hélène Banoun, biological pharmacist, PhD: “The anti-Covid mRNA vaccines aren’t subject to biodistribution and excretion studies, and this is according to the regulations of the health agencies.”

“The same product may or may not be classified as a gene product depending on whether or not it is qualified as a vaccine against an infectious disease. In the latter case, it may be exempted from these studies.”

Dr. Chris Flowers later adds that the phase one portion of the clinical trials (safety testing) was essentially glossed over. What usually takes years was six months maximum. “The Wistar rats — and that was virtually it.” He elaborates on the importance of safety testing. “Every time you look at things like this, you’ve got to wait several years to make sure nothing [bad] has happened since someone has received this experimental intervention in their lives. It can be all sorts of things, and some of these things, like cancers, may not occur for months or years later.”

“And so, this is yet another example of Pfizer not doing what it said it would do and the FDA not performing its regulatory function,” commented Dr. Wolf.

She asks, “Would you say, Dr. Flowers, that making sure a trial is conducted, according to trial protocols, is a core regulatory function of the agency that is the FDA?”

“That’s how they used to do it,” answered Dr. Flowers. “Even with the swine flu, they had just a few serious adverse events, and they pulled the vaccine. … And yet, here we are with huge numbers. They occurred very, very early on — way before this post-marketing experience document was being produced. Even at the interim analysis stage of the trial before the EUA, there were serious adverse events. But because the Pfizer doctors had turned around every single time and said, ‘Well, no serious safety signal has been identified in these reports.’ It’s absolute nonsense!”

Dr. Wolf and Dr. Flowers then discuss the “odd” distribution of adverse events.

Dr. Flowers informs that Pfizer Document 5.3.6 tracked all countries receiving the Pfizer injection 90 days after vaccine rollout. And of that global rollout, approximately half of the total adverse events (42,086) occurred in the UK, a little less than half were in the United States, and the rest were scattered across a mix of other countries.

Image Credit: quicksilvertranslate.com

“Does that strike you as odd that this is a global rollout and the vast majority, once again, we found this once before in the total of adverse events, are in the UK and the US? Wouldn’t you expect it to be more random in a global rollout?” asked Dr. Wolf.

“Absolutely,” answered Dr. Flowers. “The distribution of the Pfizer vaccine was rather chaotic, shall we say, amongst many countries, with Pfizer trying to exploit governments as, for example, what happened in Uruguay, and in Argentina and Brazil — that we actually know about. I wouldn’t go all in and say, ‘Well, it’s targeted against a western population.’ But I mean, it’s particularly fair to commentate that maybe that is a possibility.”

Going back to Document 5.3.6, how many took the C19 injection, suffered a stroke, then died because of it?

If we do some quick math, we can get an idea. So, after 90 days, 61 people died, and Pfizer stopped recording data on February 28, 2021. We are now at the end of December 2022, and 22 months have since passed. So, 61 deaths multiplied by 22 months — then divided by 3 (90 days) equals 447 vaccine-induced deaths from stroke.

“This is just dying of one thing, “ added Dr. Flowers.

“Look at all the other things we’ve shown.”

These Covid-19 injections could also be affecting the personalities of those unfortunate enough have spike protein in the brain.

“From the brain point of view, we know that lipid nanoparticles in of themselves are irritant to blood vessels and [are] getting inside the brain, which has very, very sensitive blood vessels,” explained Dr. Flowers. And the spike proteins, carried by lipid nanoparticles, cause inflammatory change, which can then cause microvessel disease. “So when you get things like microvessel disease, little micro-clots occurring, then you are going to get lots of little micro-strokes that may not be visible on any type of imaging,” stated Dr. Flowers.

“Could a lot of inflammation or tiny micro-strokes in the brain cause personality changes?,” asked Dr. Wolf.

“Absolutely, if it affects the frontal lobes,” answered Dr. Flowers. “If you remember, there was a very barbaric old-fashioned treatment — One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest — for example. They used to do a frontal lobotomy; they basically cut off the frontal lobe to pacify the really aggressive sociopath in prison.”

“I think that’s against the human court,” added Dr. Flowers. “And yet it’s being done in a different manner.”

“The notable thing about people who had frontal lobe lobotomies is how compliant they were,” added Dr. Wolf. “That their critical thinking facilities died — that they were tractable. They could be managed better institutionally.” She asks, “Couldn’t that be a possible explanation for the mysterious death of critical thinking we’re seeing in the vaccinated?”

Image Credit: ABC News

“That’s definitely a potential real cause, a pathological cause for it,” answered Dr. Flowers. But “Is it [the] chicken [or the] egg? Because those sorts of people tended to be compliant beforehand.”

But the best way to really get to the bottom of it is to do immunohistochemical stains, as suggested by Dr. Ryan Cole. That is, an antigen-antibody pathology test that can be done on post-mortem brains to get to the bottom of “where does the spike protein go?”

What is the distribution of the spike protein? How long does it remain in the body? The authorities told us the contents of the injection would stay in the arm and that the spike proteins would degrade within a few weeks. But, in Dr. McCullough’s words, “It [mRNA] is everywhere. It’s in oral secretions. It’s in your genital secretions. It’s in sweat. It’s in breast milk. We don’t know when this clears out of the body.”

Nevertheless, Pfizer knew after the first 90 days, 275 people suffered stroke-related brain damage. While 61 families were grieving the death of their loved ones and the other 214 were seeking care for their family members post-stroke, Pfizer was too busy with their marketing campaign. “Safe and effective.” They failed to address the strokes, considered them to “not raise new safety issues,” and continued pushing the Covid-19 injections. And for that, they are, at minimum, guilty of criminal negligence and malfeasance.

-End-

I’d like to give a big shout-out to Dr. Naomi Wolf, Amy Kelly, and Dr. Chris Flowers, as well as the thousands of War Room/DailyClout volunteers, who are really doing a pro bono service for humanity, digging into the Pfizer documents. Although these heroes and heroines are working for free, producing reports like this one is very expensive (distribution, staffing, and editorial costs).

So whether it’s $5 or $500, please consider making a donation to DailyClout, where all the funds they raise go to the fight, including a lawsuit against Pfizer. The people we’re up against have endless streams of money, and it’s up to our grassroots supporters to help level the playing field — and take it to them in court.

Become a DailyClout Member

Donate

The post Criminal Malfeasance: Pfizer Knew 275 People Suffered Serious Strokes in the First 90 Days After Vaccine Rollout appeared first on DailyClout.

An important message from John Campbell

John Campbell, who has been a nurse and taught nurses for 27 years, has had a gradual journey from full blue pill to red pill.

As of yesterday, he’s now officially on our side as far as the COVID vaccine only (the other vaccines will take more time):

In my view the UK health authorities should pause the current covid-19 vaccination programme, due to the risks associated with vaccination.

I therefore consider that the UK government authorities should pause the current covid mass vaccination programme, until a full, population scale risk / benefit analysis is carried out, and published for free and open peer review.

He couldn’t announce his transition on his YouTube channel because they would cancel his channel. So he announced it on Rumble:

All the comments I read were positive!

There is no way anyone is going to explain how John Campbell could have switched sides.

Want to know how? Campbell looked at the data!

You aren’t supposed to do that.

Now let’s look at a few more questions:

Know any doctors or nurses at UCSF planning to take more jabs? Please note this and fill out the name in the comments:

We’re going to win this.

Campbell is on our side.

So are virtually all the doctors and nurses at UCSF and virtually all the cardiologists in the UK.

There is no way to stop this.

The truth is finally coming out.

People need to decide whether they want to be on the right side of history or not.