Tarot by Janine 11-22-21 VIDEO… “CANADA/UK UPDATE: Not All Appears As It Is! Will People Push Back? Are People Waking Up?”

Some of you may have an interest in this reading into Canada and the UK. Also, she continues encouraging a “nose up” attitude as we go through these times. I enjoyed this one very much!

…Tarot by Janine… does a reading where she looks in on the situation with Canada and the UK! How are things looking for both countries? What’s going on behind the scenes? Are people waking up? Where do the people sit?

.

https://youtu.be/952ZGx2GZ_g

If you would like to support Janine and Guy with the channel,
here’s a “Buy Us A Coffee” link – https://ko-fi.com/janine12
Thank you for the Love and support!

All our videos are for entertainment purposes only, just our opinion as we see in the cards-intuitive-psychic interpretation- and not presenting as fact! Enjoy!

Contact and follow Tarot by Janine
Wanting to book a Reading with Ashley?
Website- https://linktr.ee/ashleysageesoterics

For all inquiries, booking private readings and to request a question to be aired –
https://www.tarotbyjanine.com

https://www.instagram.com/tarotbyjanine/

https://twitter.com/morigeaujanine

Wanting to book a Reading with Ashley?
Website- https://linktr.ee/ashleysageesoterics

If They Make an Offer

 By Anna Von Reitz

What if someone offered to buy your car by sending you an unsolicited postcard in the mail?  


And you just threw it out with the other junk mail? 


Are you responsible for answering their offer?  Not really, but…. what if they send you an offer under color of law, telling you that you “MUST” reply and “MUST” enroll in a “government sponsored program”?   And it appears to be legitimate? 


And you do respond and you do enroll under what turns out to be a False Presumption? 


This is what happened with Social Security.  


They just self-interestedly “presumed” that we were all choosing to act as Municipal citizens of the United States and that we all wanted to be considered “as” Municipal Federal Employees for purposes of taxation and retirement benefits.  


And they misaddressed us under color of law without giving any full disclosure to anyone about who they were, or what “government” they represented, or what any of this meant or who was subject to answer their offer —- which really only applies to actual Federal Civil Service Employees and Dependents. 


It would be like Ford Motor Company pretending to be “the government” and sending out a mass mailing telling everyone in the country that they had to sign up for their company retirement plan. 


That’s what FDR did to bulwark the Federal Pension System back in the 1930’s.  


Today there is a major scam operation taking place with “agents” from “the Social Security Administration” — purportedly— calling you with an official-sounding announcement telling you that you have been accused of a crime and you MUST stay on the line or face criminal prosecution…… 


If you follow the connection, someone pretending to be “Alan Smith” or “James Fox” or some other ubiquitously common name, will say that he is there to give you information about “your case” — and he will try to solicit all sorts of personal information about you, your birthday, social security number (when he is supposed to be calling from the Social Security Administration) and telephone and other information.  


These are phishing schemes, most of them coming from overseas, where these yahoos collect data on you in order to impersonate you, steal your credit, and promote other crimes. 


Just say no.  No, I don’t give out such information over the phone.  No, I am not “required” to enroll in anything.  No, I don’t have to register my name or my baby or anything else.  I’ve recorded my name and my status as a biological parent.  No, I don’t have to enroll in Social Security or the Selective Service or any of the rest of it.  And, no, I don’t “voluntarily” consent to any of it. 


If you “volunteer” you legalize their False Presumptions.  


So don’t volunteer.  Make it clear that any “pass through” use you make of your employees’ services is coincidental and does not mean that you are present within or domiciled in the Municipal United States.  And that includes Social Security. 


And if any Agency of “the” Government contacts you for any reason, tell them to put it in writing.  Never talk to any Agent voluntarily.  Always force them to put everything in writing.  


Anna Maria
—————————-
See this article and over 3400 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the Donate button on this website. 

How do we use your donations?  Find out here.

When in Doubt…..and a Fair Warning

 By Anna Von Reitz

When in doubt, look at the history.
King George III made a big point of referencing the “free, sovereign, and independent” people of America in the Treaty of Paris, 1783, which was the treaty settling the affairs of the British Territorial United States after The War of Independence.
Why?
Most likely because he was already gloating over the prospect of picking off each State, one by one, and owning the entire country as a “possession” without firing a shot. It’s easy to see that from his perspective, such was the foregone conclusion.
The Former Colonies already owed him a very substantial war debt, and between that and the ability to control their commercial shipping, he must have been well-pleased with his prospects.
Only one pesky thing stood in the way of success: the Federation of States formed in September of 1776.
King George knew, and you should, too, that the States were only “independent” between July of 1776 and September of 1776, when they created and joined the Federation of States doing business as The United States of America, for their mutual benefit and protection.
From that moment on the States were no longer individually independent; they were functioning as one country in international jurisdictions, and that remained a problem for King George’s plans.
He could have picked off Maryland easily enough; it’s large population of immigrants, limited infrastructure, and limited toll road system, plus its mixed economy based mainly on the Port of Baltimore and a little tobacco growing, made it a good target.
But the moment he put his bankers to work toward that end, Pennsylvania and New York, acting as “Sister States” in the Federation, came to Maryland’s rescue.
Undeterred, George centered his next attacks in New England, where his agents successfully undermined and counterfeited each fledgling State-issued currency.
But, then the Federation took over the mint and the coinage issuance, and a single, much more difficult to counterfeit currency was issued jointly by the States as Members of the Federation, and that effort failed, too.
In each of these instances and many more to come, the Federation proved an able means for the States to cooperate for their mutual protection, and George’s plan to pick off the States one by one or in small groups, failed.
Against all odds, the fledgling country —cobbled together from all these disparate former Colonies which differed widely in religious beliefs, ethnicity, culture, law, race, and even language (51% of all Colonists spoke German, 12% spoke French, and 6% spoke Gaelic as their primary language) —was hanging together!
The people of this country had heard Ben Franklin’s comment, “We must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”
King George and his advisors were amazed. And appalled. It would be almost eighty years before the Brits would find an in-road to break this country apart, and even then, it was the Confederation of States, not the Federation of States, which provided them with an opportunity to start the Civil War.
In everything that has happened since then, the British-Roman strategy of divide and conquer is evident. They have tried to separate the people of this country along racial divides, and economic divides, and even religious divides — to no avail.
Even today, they and their Agents are attempting to “redefine” our States of the Union as separate countries without obligation to each other. Their Agents attempt to redefine “new” States that are purportedly States of the Union without being Members of the Federation of States, but no such States exist.
In this country, the soil held by the Union of States, and the land held by the Federation of States, are inextricably and forever held together. All States of the Union are Members of the Federation and all Members of the Federation are States of the Union.
By definition.
So when you hear rumors of people starting “States” that are not members of the Federation of States, you will know that the Agents of England have been hard at work, trying to fabricate another confusion out of thin air.
You will know that their Agents have been trying to divide and conquer the Union of States and are attempting to undermine the venerable Federation of States, their Nemesis, by playing upon people’s fear of the British Territorial “Federal Government” — so that the sheep fight against their own salvation and flee into the arms of their oppressors.
The recently dissolved California Assembly’s leadership fell into this trap, and they are still trying to promote their efforts as “The California Assembly” when in fact they are acting as thieves of State property and infringing on our copyrights — and all while promoting Britain’s agenda instead of holding fast to our American history of success.
Nancy Kremer, Wayne Whomsley, and numerous others of the former California Assembly have willfully removed themselves from our State of the Union, which is by definition a Member of the Federation of States, and are promoting another British Copycat instead.
This counts as an act of insurrection against the lawful government of the State and the People of California, and should be recognized for what it is. If the former California Assembly leaders are arrested, know that squelching such activities is part of the job of the Territorial Government.
And be sure, if you are questioned, to make it clear that you did not agree to redefine California in any way, and that so far as you are concerned, California is a State of the Union and a Member of the Federation of States, and always will be.
Strange and anti-intuitive as it may seem, the British Territorial Government is under contract and gets paid big money to attack any “rebels” so they will go after these folks and other Pretend Assemblies, which include Ron Vroorman’s “Oregon Assembly” and the “National Assemblies”.
You will have to stand tall and make it clear that you are a member of the lawful State Assembly and are properly declared and recorded and understand that your State is a State of the Union and a member of the Federation of States.
The only actual American State called California continues to organize under the care and guidance of the Californian Coordinators listed at: www.TheAmericanStatesAssembly.net.
So long as you are not confused about who you are and what your State is, “a State of the Union and a member of the Federation of States” –you won’t be harmed.
Get off track and slide into their lane, and you are liable for your own damages.
—————————-
See this article and over 3400 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the Donate button on this website. 

How do we use your donations?  Find out here.

The War on Fluoride Rages On

According to a commentary in the journal Nature, it is nearly impossible to get both sides of the fluoride issue to meet in the middle of anything.1 On one side, fluoride treatment supporters say it prevents cavities and strengthens teeth.

On the other side, Michael Connett of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and others say the risks fluoride presents to children’s overall health far outweigh any dental benefits.

Connett had been preparing his testimony to give before the Environmental Protection Agency for nearly four years when he gave his opening statement June 8, 2020, from his office over a Zoom call. The bulk of his testimony and that of his witnesses argued that fluoride is a neurotoxin, the addition of which to the water supply is not necessary to lower the rate of oral cavities.

He and others provided scientific evidence of the damage that fluoride causes in infants. Proponents, including the American Dental Association (ADA) and the Oral Health Division of the CDC, have spent millions of dollars on promotion2 and public relations3 to sell fluoridation using half-truths, convincing talking points, and diversions.

To date fluoride is hailed by the CDC as “one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century,”4,5 with roughly 72.4% of the U.S. population drinking from a fluoridated public water supply.6 The history of fluoridated water begins in the 1940s, when published studies supported the addition of fluoride to the drinking water to aid in the reduction of tooth decay.7

Yet, research since then paints a different picture. Despite a lack of fluoridated water in some communities, the rates of tooth decay have continued to decline in tandem with fluoridated communities.8

The High Cost of the War Over Fluoride

The first fluoride community trials9 were done in New York, Michigan and Ontario, Canada. In each area, the researchers compared a pair of cities, one with fluoridated water and one without. For example, they compared Newburgh and Kingston in New York state and Grand Rapids and Muskegon in Michigan.10

The researchers conducted surveys over 13 to 15 years and found in the communities where children drank fluoridated water, cavities were reduced by up to 70%. After the data were released, communities around the U.S. began adding fluoride to their water.

Since the initial studies looked at the difference between children and adults drinking fluoridated water and those who did not consume it, scientists theorized that the best benefit came from consumption. However, in the following years, it was discovered that fluoride is most effective against tooth decay only after teeth have erupted from the gums.11

According to the article in Nature,12 in the early years, researchers thought fluoride would benefit an infant growing in its mother’s womb. But, they later found that while fluoride is incorporated into a fetus’ developing teeth, it only works after the baby is born and the teeth have erupted.

Another discovery they made was that, when the mouth environment becomes acidic, fluoride ions move out of the plaque and pull minerals from saliva to raise mineral levels in the enamel surface and slow cavity development. When researchers showed that topical application was another way to ward off dental decay, dentists began using topical fluoride applications, fluoridated toothpaste flooded the market and children in primary schools were given fluoride tablets.

All the while, health officials continued to add fluoride to the water supply, right up until the present day. This is one of the reasons for Connett’s charges against the EPA — that water fluoridation is no longer necessary when fluoride applications appear to have the same benefit.

First, Do No Harm

Findings from a fluoride study published in JAMA Pediatrics13 in 2019 and another published in Environmental Health14 in 2017 have garnered the most attention in fluoride research in recent years.

Researchers in the JAMA study compared the IQ of children who were born in areas using fluoridated water against those in areas using non-fluoridated water. The data demonstrated there was as much as a five-point drop in IQ when an infant is exposed to fluoride in utero. Christine Till is a neuropsychologist from Toronto, Canada, and lead scientist on the study. She told Nature:

“It’s not disputed that fluoride is toxic at high levels. You have some weaker studies saying there’s no effect. And then you have our study, and the Mexico study [which found a correlation between a pregnant woman’s ingestion of flouridated water and reduced IQ in their children], that are high quality, saying there is an effect.”

Following these two studies, Philippe Grandjean, environmental medicine researcher from Denmark, developed a benchmark dose study on fluoride to determine when there would be detectable adverse effects on IQ.15 His June 2021 paper showed levels as low as 0.2 mg per liter had a distinct effect on IQ.

This is less than one-third of the level recommended for water supplementation and one-20th of the maximum allowable level in the U.S.16 In other words, Grandjean determined that the levels of fluoride currently being used for U.S. water supplementation are much higher than the lowest level at which fluoride consumption negatively affects an infant’s IQ.

Added to this is a 2015 meta-analysis of 107 studies published by the Cochrane Library,17 which found there was “insufficient information to determine whether initiation of a water fluoridation program results in a change in disparities in carries across socioeconomic status levels.”18

This conclusion is important since many who argue for a fluoridated water supply believe it’s necessary for cavity prevention in communities where people cannot afford dental care and not all children can be given topical fluoride.

E. Angeles Martinez Mier studies dental public health at Indiana University. Despite poor evidence that consuming fluoride can reduce the development of caries, Martinez Mier told the Nature reporter,19 “A lot of public-health dentists are adamant that fluoridated water is the only thing we have that reaches the public, regardless of access to care, regardless of public health.”

Atomic Bomb and Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Act

What is sometimes forgotten is that fluoride was added to the water supply not because scientists originally believed that it would help reduce cavities in children’s teeth, but because they had an abundance of the key chemical used in making the atomic bomb. Unfortunately, it was also one of the most toxic chemicals for the workers and nearby communities.20

Investigative reporters Chris Bryson and Joel Griffiths wrote an article in 1997 which was originally commissioned by the Christian Science Monitor. The story was fully documented but remained unpublished until the FAN published it in September 1997.21

It is a fascinating story of how science and the military joined forces in the name of national security. In a race to build the atomic bomb, documented evidence that fluoride was a neurotoxin was classified and buried with information about the Manhattan Project, the code name for the atomic bomb.22

Declassified documents revealed a body of evidence that fluoride had significantly negative health effects. Without a way to adequately dispose of the toxin, scientists and the military developed “Program F” in an effort to find evidence that could help defeat litigation against fluoride’s effect on human injury.23

This has allowed manufacturers to make hundreds of millions of dollars24 a year selling a hazardous industrial waste for use as a water additive rather than having to pay for toxic waste disposal.

“Toxic Treatment: Fluoride’s Transformation from Industrial Waste to Public Health Miracle” in the March 2018 issue of Origins,25 a joint publication by the history departments at The Ohio State University and Miami University, notes:

“Without the phosphate industry’s effluent, water fluoridation would be prohibitively expensive. And without fluoridation, the phosphate industry would be stuck with an expensive waste disposal problem.”

Today, Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act allows citizens and nongovernmental organizations to petition the EPA to remove toxic substances found to pose an “unreasonable risk”26 either to the population or a subset of that population.

This is the law that FAN used to bring litigation against the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoride chemicals to the U.S. drinking water supply. The petition included a large body of research demonstrating fluoride is neurotoxic and included over 2,500 pages of scientific evidence detailing the health risks.27

Based on current evidence that fluoride consumption is a neurotoxin to developing infants and young children, it would seem reasonable that it represents an unreasonable risk.

Is Your Food Supply an Environmental Factor Lowering IQ?

One of the neurotoxic effects scientists have demonstrated is reduction in IQ. Interestingly, scientists have also found that IQ scores have been falling since the 1970s.28,29 Researchers from Norway published their data in 2018, which showed that scores declined in individuals born after 1975.

Other studies have found similar results in Britain, France, Denmark and Finland. Ole Rogeberg was one of the researchers who told CNN30 that the cause of the decline is likely due to environmental factors. Although access to education is one environmental factor being considered, the team acknowledges that more research is needed to understand what else may be linked to intelligence.

Coincidentally, sulfuryl fluoride has been a registered pesticide in the U.S. since 1959.31 The product is a colorless and odorless gas that’s used to fumigate for bed bugs, termites, mice and rats.

It’s also used on some agricultural products and was approved as a food fumigant on post-harvest food in 2004.32 Since it breaks down into fluoride after it’s applied, it can leave fluoride residues on the grains, fruits, tree nuts and other foods to which it’s applied.33 This approval raised the level of fluoride residue on food to its highest level in history. In 2005 the EPA gave an additional approval to sulfuryl fluoride for direct treatment of coffee and cocoa.

Recognizing the neurotoxicity effect that this could have in reducing IQ and because it’s a highly potent greenhouse gas,34 the EPA drafted a risk assessment in 2011 recommending that the aggregate exposure from water, toothpaste and food was too high for infants and children.

They proposed canceling acceptable pesticide residue levels on food to phase out sulfuryl fluoride over a three-year period. However, in 2013,35 the House of Representatives Appropriations Interior and Environmental subcommittee voted to cut the budget of the EPA and prevent the agency from enforcing the decision to phase out sulfuryl fluoride from the food supply.

In other words, with full knowledge of declassified early studies that fluoride has a neurotoxic effect, and data demonstrating the effect it has on IQ of all infants, the House of Representatives chose to protect the financial interests of the industry, rather than the health and brains of the children.

Fluoridation Is Neurotoxic to Developing Infants and Children

One of the arguments for maintaining the status quo is that fluoride now reaches children and adults of all socioeconomic statuses. Even those who are unable to get routine dental care are now exposed to fluoride on a regular basis.36

What is not considered is exposure to the same individuals through toothpaste, mouthwash and their food supply. It also doesn’t appear that any governmental agency or legislative body is interested in reducing your exposure.

During that June 2020 testimony, Connett spoke of the 2019 National Toxicology Program (NTP) draft report that reached the same conclusion — fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin.37 The report was not entered as evidence and the case remains open as the judge waits for the 2022 NTP conclusion.

If you need further proof of fluoride’s neurotoxicity, in addition to slowly dumbing down the next generation to protect teeth and gums, scientists have revealed that fluoride acts as an endocrine disruptor38 and has been linked to thyroid disease.39 This in turn can contribute to obesity, heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and depression.

Exposure to fluoridated water also increases the number of children diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.40 But, the effects of fluoride do not end in infants and children. One 2019 study41 demonstrated that chronic low-level fluoride exposure alters sleep patterns of adolescents aged 16 to 19.

The study used data from the 2015-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey that included plasma fluoride and water fluoride measurements. An analysis of the data revealed that for every 0.52 milligram per liter increase in water fluoride, there were 197% higher odds of symptoms that suggested sleep apnea, a 24-minute later bedtime and a 26-minute later waking time.42

Exposure to too much fluoride also causes dental fluorosis. This condition changes the appearance of the tooth enamel so there are white spots and sometimes pitting. While the CDC43 says a mild condition does not affect dental function, a study published in Sweden in 202144 found there was as much as a 50% higher rate of hip fractures in postmenopausal women in areas with up to 1 mg per liter of fluoride in the drinking water.

The level of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic far exceeds the evidence that was in place when lead was banned from gasoline. During an interview with me in June 2021, Connett, who holds a degree in chemistry and specializes in environmental toxicology, said:45

“Fluoride is following the same trajectory as lead because basically, whether or not you found a neurotoxic effect for lead was simply a function of how well designed your study was. The better your study was designed, the more likely you were to find that lead was lowering IQ. The same thing is happening with fluoride.”

How COVID-19 Jab Benefits Are Exaggerated

In a November 12, 2021, blog post,1 Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., reviews how the benefits of the COVID-19 shots have been exaggerated by the drug companies and misrepresented to the public by an uncritical media. She has previously given many lectures on how the drug companies conflated absolute and relative risks for statin drugs.2

Demasi was a respected Australian science presenter at ABC television until she produced a Catalyst report on the dangers of Wi-Fi and cellphones. In the wake of the controversy it raised, she and 11 of her staff members were axed and the episode retracted.3 That was 2016. Today, Demasi is one of the few professional journalists seeking and publishing the truth about COVID-19.

Absolute Versus Relative Risk Reduction

In her post, Demasi highlights one of the most commonly used tricks in the book — conflating absolute and relative risk reduction. As noted by Demasi, AstraZeneca and Australia’s health minister, Greg Hunt, claimed the AstraZeneca injection offered “100% protection” against COVID-19 death. How did they get this number? Demasi explains:4

“In the trial5 of 23,848 subjects … there was one death in the placebo group and no deaths in the vaccinated group. One less death out of a total of one, indeed was a relative reduction of 100%, but the absolute reduction was 0.01%.”

Similarly, Pfizer’s COVID shot was said to be 95% effective against the infection, but this too is the relative risk reduction, not the absolute reduction. The absolute risk reduction for Pfizer’s shot was a meager 0.84%.

It’s worth noting that an incredibly low number of people were infected in the first place. Only 8 out of 18,198 vaccine recipients developed COVID symptoms (0.04%), and 162 of the 18,325 in the placebo group (0.88%).

Since your risk of COVID was minuscule to begin with, even if the shot was able to reduce your absolute risk by 100%, it would still be trivial in real-world terms.

According to Gerd Gigerenzer, director of the Harding Centre for Risk Literacy at the Max Planck Institute, only quoting the relative risk reduction is a “sin” against transparent communication, as it can be used as a “deliberate tactic to manipulate or persuade people.” Demasi also quotes John Ioannidis, professor at Stanford University, who told her:6

“This is not happening just for vaccines. Over many decades, RRR [relative risk reduction] has been the dominant way of communicating results of clinical trials. Almost always, RRR looks nicer than absolute risk reductions.”

Demasi continues:7

“When asked if there was any justification for misleading the public about the vaccine’s benefits to encourage uptake, Prof Ioannidis rejected the notion.

‘I don’t see how one can increase uptake by using misleading information. I am all in favor of increasing uptake, but this needs to use complete information, otherwise sooner or later incomplete information will lead to misunderstandings and will backfire,’ says Ioannidis.

The way authorities have communicated risk to the public, is likely to have misled and distorted the public’s perception of the vaccine’s benefit and underplayed the harms. This, in essence, is a violation of the ethical and legal obligations of informed consent.”

US Health Authorities Have Misrepresented the Data

U.S. health authorities, like Australia’s, are guilty of misrepresenting the data to the public. In February 2021, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Rochelle Walensky co-wrote a JAMA paper8 which stated that “Clinical trials have shown that the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. are highly effective against COVID-19 infection, severe illness and death.”

Alas, “there were too few deaths recorded in the controlled trials at the time to arrive at such a conclusion,” Demasi writes.9 This observation was made by professor Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ, during Sen. Ron Johnson’s Expert Panel on Federal Vaccine Mandates, November 1, 2021.10 During that roundtable discussion, Doshi stated that:

“The trials did not show a reduction in deaths, even for COVID deaths … Those who claimed the trials showed that the vaccines were highly effective in saving lives were wrong. The trials did not demonstrate this.”

Indeed, the six-month follow-up of Pfizer’s trial showed 15 deaths in the vaccine group and 14 deaths in the placebo group. Then, during the open label phase, after Pfizer decided to eliminate the placebo group by offering the actual shot to everyone who wanted it, another five deaths occurred in the vaccine group.

Two of those five had originally been in the placebo group, and had taken the shot in the open label phase. So, in the end, what we have are 20 deaths in the vaccine group, compared to 14 in the placebo group. We also have the suspicious fact that two of the placebo participants suddenly died after getting the real deal.

How You Express Effect Size Matters

As noted in a July 2021 Lancet paper,11 “fully understanding the efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines is less straightforward than it might seem. Depending on how the effect size is expressed, a quite different picture might emerge.”

The authors point out that the relative risk reduction really needs to “be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time.” This is why the absolute risk reduction figure is so important:12

“Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population …

ARR is also used to derive an estimate of vaccine effectiveness, which is the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one more case of COVID-19 as 1/ARR. NNVs bring a different perspective: 81 for the Moderna–NIH, 78 for the AstraZeneca–Oxford … 84 for the J&J, and 119 for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.

The explanation lies in the combination of vaccine efficacy and different background risks of COVID-19 across studies: 0.9% for the Pfizer–BioNTech … 1.4% for the Moderna–NIH, 1.8% for the J&J, and 1.9% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines.

ARR (and NNV) are sensitive to background risk — the higher the risk, the higher the effectiveness — as exemplified by the analyses of the J&J’s vaccine on centrally confirmed cases compared with all cases: both the numerator and denominator change, RRR does not change (66–67%), but the one-third increase in attack rates in the unvaccinated group (from 1.8% to 2.4%) translates in a one-fourth decrease in NNV (from 84 to 64) …

With the use of only RRRs, and omitting ARRs, reporting bias is introduced, which affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy.

When communicating about vaccine efficacy, especially for public health decisions such as choosing the type of vaccines to purchase and deploy, having a full picture of what the data actually show is important, and ensuring comparisons are based on the combined evidence that puts vaccine trial results in context and not just looking at one summary measure, is also important.”

The authors go on to stress that comparing the effectiveness of the COVID shots is further hampered by the fact that they use a variety of different study protocols, including different placebos. They even differ in their primary endpoint, i.e., what they consider a COVID case, and how and when diagnosis is made, and more.

“We are left with the unanswered question as to whether a vaccine with a given efficacy in the study population will have the same efficacy in another population with different levels of background risk of COVID-19,” the authors note.

One of the best real-world examples of this is Israel, where the relative risk reduction was 94% at the outset and an absolute risk reduction of 0.46%, which translates into an NNV of 217. In the Phase 3 Pfizer trial, the absolute risk reduction was 0.84% and the NNV 119.13 As noted by the authors:14

“This means in a real-life setting, 1.8 times more subjects might need to be vaccinated to prevent one more case of COVID-19 than predicted in the corresponding clinical trial.”

SARS-CoV-2 Specific Antibodies Pose Danger for the Obese

In related news, a recent study15 published in the International Journal of Obesity warns that “the majority of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in COVID-19 patients with obesity are autoimmune and not neutralizing.”

In plain English, if you’re obese, you’re at risk of developing autoimmune problems if you get the natural infection. You’re also at higher risk of a serious infection, as the antibodies your body produces are not the neutralizing kind that kill the virus. As explained by the authors:16

“SARS-CoV-2 infection induces neutralizing antibodies in all lean but only in few obese COVID-19 patients. SARS-CoV-2 infection also induces anti-MDA [malondialdehyde, a marker of oxidative stress and lipid peroxidation] and anti-AD [adipocyte-derived protein antigens] autoimmune antibodies more in lean than in obese patients as compared to uninfected controls.

Serum levels of these autoimmune antibodies, however, are always higher in obese versus lean COVID-19 patients. Moreover … we also evaluated the association of anti-MDA and anti-AD antibodies with serum CRP and found a positive association between CRP and autoimmune antibodies.

Our results highlight the importance of evaluating the quality of the antibody response in COVID-19 patients with obesity, particularly the presence of autoimmune antibodies, and identify biomarkers of self-tolerance breakdown. This is crucial to protect this vulnerable population at higher risk of responding poorly to infection with SARS-CoV-2 than lean controls.”

Now, these findings apply to obese people who develop the natural infection, but it makes one wonder whether the same holds true for the COVID jab. If the antibodies produced in response to the actual virus are primarily autoantibodies, will obese people develop autoantibodies instead of neutralizing antibodies in response to the COVID shot as well?

For clarity, an autoantibody is an antibody that is directed against one or more of your own body’s proteins. Many autoimmune diseases are caused by autoantibodies that target and attack your own tissues or organs.

So, this is no small concern, seeing how the mRNA in the COVID shots (and subsequent SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which is what your body produces antibodies against) gets distributed throughout your body and accumulates in various organs.17,18

Vermont’s COVID Cases Despite Highest Vaccination Rate

At this point, there’s an overwhelming amount of evidence showing the COVID shots are not working. What little protection you do get clearly wanes within a handful of months, and may leave you worse off than you were before. We’re seeing data to this effect from a number of different places.

In the U.S., we can now look at Vermont.19 At nearly 72% vaccinated, it has the highest rate of “fully vaccinated” residents in the country, according to ABC News,20 yet COVID cases are now suddenly surging to new heights.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show Vermont had the 12th highest COVID case rate in the nation as of November 9, 2021. Over the previous seven days, cases had increased by 42%. It couldn’t have been due to a surge in testing, though, as the weekly average of tests administered had only increased by 9% in that time.

What’s more, during that first week of November, the hospital admission rate for patients who were fully vaccinated increased by 8%, while the admission rate for those who were not fully vaccinated actually decreased by 15%.

Keep in mind that you’re not considered “fully vaccinated” until two weeks after your second injection. If you got your second dose a week ago and end up in the hospital with COVID symptoms, you’re counted as unvaccinated. This gross manipulation of reality makes it very difficult to interpret the data, but even with this manipulation it is beyond obvious that the vaccines are failing.

Overall, the case rate in Vermont is FAR higher now than it as in the fall of 2020, when no one had gotten the “vaccine.” According to Vermont health commissioner Dr. Mark Levine, the surge is occurring primarily among unvaccinated people in their 20s and children aged 5 through 11 — a curious coincidence, seeing how the shots are just now being rolled out for 5- to 11-year-olds.

Levine blames the surge on the highly infectious delta variant, but delta has been around for months already. The first case of delta in Vermont was identified in mid-May 2021.21 Surely, it wouldn’t have taken six months for this most-infectious of variants to make the rounds and cause an unprecedented spike?

Two clues are given by Levine, however, when he admits that a) Vermont has one of the lowest rates of natural immunity in the U.S. and b) protection is waning among those who got the COVID shot early to mid-year. Breakthrough cases among the fully vaccinated shot up 31% during the first week of November.22

Fully Vaxxed Are Nine Times More Likely To Be Hospitalized

Coincidentally, data from physician assistant Deborah Conrad, presented by attorney Aaron Siri23 October 17, 2021, shows vaccinated people are nine times more likely to be hospitalized than the unvaccinated.

The key, however, was in what they counted as vaccinated. Rather than only including those who had gotten the shot two weeks or more before being hospitalized, they simply counted those who had one or more shots, regardless of when, as vaccinated. This gives us an honest accounting, finally! As explained by Siri:24

“A concerned Physician Assistant, Deborah Conrad, convinced her hospital to carefully track the COVID-19 vaccination status of every patient admitted to her hospital. The result is shocking.

As Ms. Conrad has detailed, her hospital serves a community in which less than 50% of the individuals were vaccinated for COVID-19 but yet, during the same time period, approximately 90% of the individuals admitted to her hospital were documented to have received this vaccine.

These patients were admitted for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to COVID-19 infections. Even more troubling is that there were many individuals who were young, many who presented with unusual or unexpected health events, and many who were admitted months after vaccination.”

Despite these troubling findings, health authorities ignored Conrad when she reached out. In mid-July 2021, Siri’s law firm also sent formal letters to the CDC, the Health and Human Services Department and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Conrad’s behalf,25 and those were ignored as well.

“This again highlights the importance of never permitting government coercion and mandates when it comes to medical procedures,” Siri writes.26

Now, one of the most shocking details gleaned from Conrad’s data collection, which Siri failed to make clear but Steve Kirsch highlights in a recent substack post is that:27

“The only way you can get those numbers is if vaccinated people are 9 times more likely to be hospitalized than unvaccinated. It is mathematically impossible to get to those numbers any other way. Period. Full stop. This is known as an ‘inconvenient truth.’”

Indeed, the more data we gain access to, the worse it looks for these COVID shots. Unfortunately, those who push them seem hell-bent on ignoring any and all data that don’t support their stance.

Worse, it seems data and statistics are being intentionally manipulated by our health authorities to present a false picture of safety and effectiveness. All such tactics are indefensible at this point, and people who believe the official narrative without doing their own research do so at their own risk.

Austria first Western country to force covid “vaccines” on all citizens … dissent will not be tolerated

(Natural News) In a first for the Western world, Austria has announced that come February, all citizens will need to be “fully vaccinated” for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19). Until that time, the entire country is being plunged into yet another nationwide lockdown. This latest lockdown includes both vaccinated and unvaccinated residents, all of whom are…

Why are LEFTIST riots always tolerated? Violence from the Left is “good” but self-defense from the Right is deemed “racist” 

(Natural News) Before Donald J. Trump ran for President, he was never called a racist or a white supremacist, because he’s not one. However, the Leftist-run mass media immediately began branding him as such, to create a fake race war and upheaval should he somehow pull off a victory. America witnessed Antifa and Black Lives Matter…