Biden DOJ Raids  Rudy Giuliani’s Home and Office

On Tuesday the Biden administration’s Justice Department obtained a search warrant for Rudy Giuliani and used it to search his New York City apartment and office, seizing records and electronic devices….

Online Ticketing Site Cancels Covid Censorship Expose’ After Weekend Screening

‘Seeing 2020’ film tells story of AFLDS fight to expose official corruption, provide censored COVID science

Los Angeles, CA – America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) today announced that Eventbrite, the ticketing and event-management website, attempted to cancel member-physicians with the medical nonprofit following a documentary film-promotion event last weekend. “Seeing 2020,” a feature-length look at censorship during the coronavirus pandemic, includes interviews with a number of AFLDS-affiliated doctors who were targeted last year by the media, Big Tech, and state medical and pharmacy boards simply for talking about their work treating COVID-19 patients on the front lines.

AFLDS used Eventbrite to promote live screenings and question-and-answer sessions with its member-physicians for “Seeing 2020” on April 16 to 18 in Dallas, Houston, and the city of Georgetown, Texas. Around the time its Sunday, April 18 screening was set to begin, AFLDS received an email from Eventbrite informing the group that its event had been “unpublished, and your account has been locked” due to the film event’s violating Eventbrite’s “community guidelines.” As of this writing, Eventbrite has not elaborated on the specific violation that triggered the ban, how long the ban will remain in place, nor has it released almost $8,000 generated by AFLDS through ticket sales. This is not the first time America’s Frontline Doctors has been the victim of high-tech cancellation. In summer 2020, Big Tech oligarchs at Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Squarespace targeted the AFLDS White Coat Summit in Washington, DC, systematically erasing from the internet videos of the event which had attracted more than 20 million total views.

“Big Tech commissars just got caught trying to censor a documentary about censorship. The irony would be laughable if our First Amendment rights weren’t being deliberately circumscribed to limit a point of view,” said Simone Gold, MD, founder of America’s Frontline Doctors. “If it can happen to us, it can happen to any American who decides to question the conventional wisdom of our so-called ‘expert’ class. This is why AFLDS recently launched its Legal Task Force. Everyday citizens need someone fighting for them against the corrupt and self-dealing tech-media-government establishment. This latest attempt at cancel culture only serves to strengthen our resolve for the task ahead.”

Lee Merritt: The Covid Con and the End Game

Former Pfizer VP issues warning: ‘This is Israel now, UK in just a few weeks’

Former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer Dr. Mike Yeadon today related to plans to expand Green Passport implementation with a public plea in which he told America’s Frontline Doctors: “This is Israel now, and the U.K. in just a few weeks.”

His message continues:

Those who think vaccine passports are good or at least ok, I’m addressing you.

If you were a vulnerable person and have been vaccinated, you’re protected. You don’t need to know others’ immune status. Note, even if they’ve been vaccinated, that doesn’t guarantee they can’t carry a single virus particle and donate it to you. So it doesn’t help you or make your safer to know everyone else has been vaccinated.

If you’ve declined vaccination, for example, because you’re not at risk from this virus, noting younger people are at MORE risk from influenza than from COVID-19, you also don’t need to know anyone else’s immune status.

Vaccination protects those who need it. Vaccine passports protect nobody.

But vaxpass is useful to our overlords. It’ll be the worlds first common format database, operable anywhere from Bolton to Bogota, containing your unique digital ID and an editable health status flag (initially about vaccination status).

Who controls that database and any algorithm governing what it permits and denies has absolutely totalitarian control over every aspect of your life….

Greenwald: CNN’s New “Reporter,” Natasha Bertrand, is a Deranged Conspiracy Theorist and Scandal-Plagued CIA Propagandist

The most important axiom for understanding how the U.S. corporate media functions is that there is never accountability for those who serve as propagandists for the U.S. security state. The opposite is true: the more aggressively and recklessly you spread CIA narratives or pro-war manipulation, the more rewarded you will be in that world.

The classic case is Jeffrey Goldberg, who wrote one of the most deceitful and destructive articles of his generation: a lengthy New Yorker article in May, 2002 — right as the propagandistic groundwork for the invasion of Iraq was being laid — that claimed Saddam Hussein had formed an alliance with Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. In February, 2003, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, NPR host Robert Siegel devoted a long segment to this claim. When he asked Goldberg about “a man named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,” Goldberg replied: “He is one of several men who might personify a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.”

Needless to say, nothing could generate hatred for someone among the American population — just nine months away from the 9/11 attack — more than associating them with bin Laden. Five months after Goldberg’s New Yorker article, the U.S. Congress authorized the use of military force to impose regime change on Iraq; ten months later, the U.S. invaded Iraq; and by September, 2003, close to 70% of Americans believed the lie that Saddam had personally participated in the 9/11 attack….

Goldberg’s fabrication-driven article generated ample celebratory media attention and even prestigious journalism awards. It also led to great financial reward and career advancement. In 2007, The Atlantic‘s publisher David Bradley lured Goldberg away from The New Yorker by lavishing him with a huge signing bonus and even sent exotic horses to entertain Goldberg’s children. Goldberg is now the editor-in-chief of that magazine and thus one of the most influential figures in media. In other words, the person who wrote what is arguably the most disastrous article of that decade was one most rewarded by the industry — all because he served the aims of the U.S. security state and its war aims. That is how U.S. corporate journalism functions.

Another illustrative mascot for this lucrative career path is NBC‘s national security correspondent Ken Dilanian. In 2014, his own former paper, The Los Angeles Times, acknowledged his “collaborative” relationship with the CIA. During his stint there, he mimicked false claims from John Brennan’s CIA that no innocent people were killed from a 2012 Obama drone strike, only for human rights groups and leaked documents to prove many were.

A FOIA request produced documents published by The Intercept in 2015 that showed Dilanian submitting his “reporting” to the CIA for approval in violation of The LA Times’ own ethical guidelines and then repeating what he was told to say. But again, serving the CIA even with false “reporting” and unethical behavior is a career benefit in corporate media, not an impediment, and Dilanian rapidly fell upward after these embarrassing revelations. He first went to Associated Press and then to NBC News, where he broadcast numerous false Russiagate scams including purporting to “independently confirm” CNN’s ultimately retracted bombshell that Donald Trump, Jr. obtained advance access to the 2016 WikiLeaks archive….

On Monday, CNN made clear that this dynamic still drives the corporate media world. The network proudly announced that it had hired Natasha Bertrand away from Politico. In doing so, they added to their stable of former CIA operatives, NSA spies, Pentagon Generals and FBI agents a reporter who has done as much as anyone, if not more so, to advance the scripts of those agencies.

Bertrand’s career began taking off when, while at Business Insider, she abandoned her obsession with Russia’s role in Syria in 2016 in order to monomaniacally fixate on every last conspiracy theory and gossip item that drove the Russiagate fraud during the 2016 campaign and then into the Trump presidency. Each month, Bertrand produced dozens of Russiagate articles for the site that were so unhinged that they made Rachel Maddow look sober, cautious and reliable.

In 2018, it was Jeffrey Goldberg himself — knowing a star CIA propagandist when he sees one — who gave Bertrand her first big break by hiring her away from Business Insider to cover Russiagate for The Atlantic. Shortly thereafter, she joined the Queen of Russiagate conspiracies herself by becoming a national security analyst for MSNBC and NBC News. From there, it was onto Politico and now CNN: the ideal, rapid career climb that is the dream of every liberal security state servant calling themselves a journalist. Her final conspiratorial article for The Atlantic before moving to Politico is the perfect illustration of who and what she is:

CNN’s new national security star was no ordinary Russiagate fanatic. There was no conspiracy theory too unhinged or evidence-free for her to promote. As The Washington Post‘s media reporter Erik Wemple documented once the Steele Dossier was debunked, there was arguably nobody in media other than Rachel Maddow who promoted and ratified that hoax as aggressively, uncritically and persistently as Bertrand. She defended it even after the Mueller Report corroborated virtually none of its key claims….

German police ransack home of judge in landmark face mask case

Oh, dear! Surely older Germans are flashing back to the 1930s:

The case marked the first time that evidence was presented before a German court regarding the scientific soundness and necessity of the prescribed anti-COVID measures, reported 2020News.

He wrote: “…the children are not only endangered in their mental, physical and spiritual well-being by the obligation to wear face masks during school hours and to keep their distance from each other and from other persons, but, in addition, they are already being harmed. At the same time, this violates numerous rights of the children and their parents under the law, the constitution and international conventions. This applies in particular to the right to free development of the personality and to physical integrity from Article 2 of the Basic Law as well as to the right from Article 6 of the Basic Law to upbringing and care by the parents (also with regard to measures for preventive health care and ‘objects’ to be carried by children)…”

The judge agreed with the experts’ assessment that the masks were not useful for viral protection, that the PCR test could not detect a disease-causing infection with the necessary certainty, and that asymptomatic transmission played no detectable role epidemiologically with respect to SARS-CoV-2.

A peer-reviewed study published by the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH) in the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) last week concluded that “extended mask-wearing by the general population could lead to relevant effects and consequences in many medical fields.”

CDC is Erasing Women

Information about COVID-19 Vaccines for People who Are Pregnant or Breastfeeding

Getting vaccinated is a personal choice. Any of the currently authorized COVID-19 vaccines can be offered to people who are pregnant or breastfeeding. If you have questions about getting vaccinated, a conversation with your healthcare provider might help, but is not required….

I see that this article contains exactly one reference to “pregnant women” and 17 references to “pregnant people” or “people who are pregnant”.   Why?

Women tend to be less programmable, they’re less useful on the battlefield, they tend to have heightened intuition and empathy, and they tend to be inconveniently involved in the upbringing of their children.   If it wasn’t for getting pregnant, women would be of no use to the satanic elite at all.

When they perfect artificial wombs and mass human cloning, and finish wrecking human sexuality and reproduction with surgery, vaccines and environmental toxins, women will no longer serve any purpose.   They will be erased.

Seriously.   No more women.   Only robots, cloned eunuchs and a few cloistered humans serving a very few elites.

Women as a fading memory.   It’s already happening in the language, in sports, even in the restrooms.  Gendercide.

Satanists Infiltrating Midwifery Movement

Billionaires Invest in Cloned Human Breast Cells for  Artificial Breast Milk

U.S. Army Used Virtual Town Hall to Convert — and Coerce — Vaccine Skeptics

Earlier this month, the U.S. Army hosted a Facebook live town hall on the topic of concerns about COVID-19 vaccines.

The virtual town hall followed this format:

  • Affirm soldiers who took the experimental vaccine or question soldiers who have not yet taken the vaccine.
  • Legitimize an Army doctor as a drug expert to counter risks or concerns without citing any references for the information provided.
  • Leverage the influence of the Sergeant Major of the Army, the highest ranking non-commissioned officer, to persuade soldiers to risk taking the experimental drug without providing factual informed consent.

This format was designed to not only promote maximum conversion of soldiers to take the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) drug, but also to convince them to persuade their friends and family to do the same.

The overall tone of the town hall was respectful and caring, but the false efficacy claims and risk omissions are indicators of dysfunctional groupthink at best, or cult mentality at worst.

The U.S. Army leadership is persuading soldiers to put blind faith in an EUA drug using miraculous claims even the manufacturers do not make about their products.

The six-person town hall panel consisted of Sergeant Major of the Army (SMA) Michael Grinston; Dr. Steven Cersovsky, science advisor to the U.S. Army Medical Command; three U.S. Army service members; and a moderator.

The one-hour session addressed three main concerns about the COVID vaccine among military members: infertility, variants of the virus and the speed with which the vaccines were developed.

Cersovsky began the town hall with an evangelistic sales pitch for the vaccine beginning with this statement: “The good news is the vaccine is available, there is light at the end of the tunnel and taking the vaccine protects you, protects the community and protects our nation.”

Cersovsky went on to acknowledge concerns about the speed with which the vaccines were developed and the risks that may pose to public safety, but then said, the “only risk to public safety is not getting vaccinated.”

According to Cersovsky, viral salvation can be achieved only by getting the vaccine. He vaguely referred to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and “data” without actually providing any data from the clinical trials or surveillance systems.

The medical ethics of informed consent requires doctors to tell patients the risk of the disease, the known benefits of the medical intervention, the known risks of the intervention and alternatives to the intervention. Cersovsky mentioned none of these.

In the case of the COVID vaccine, informed consent requires doctors inform soldiers of the following:

  • Risk of disease: Most people have a 99.9% survival rate for SARS-CoV2, with increased risk of severe disease in elderly populations with co-morbid health conditions. Per the CDC, the most frequent underlying medical conditions were obesity (35.1%), diabetes (8.4%) and pulmonary disease (7.8%).
  • Efficacy of Intervention: EUA COVID vaccines did not demonstrate prevention of infection or transmission of the virus in the clinical trials. Symptom prevention is the primary endpoint for the clinical trials. Consent to a COVID vaccine is equivalent to voluntary participation in an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial ending in 2022 or 2023.
  • Risks of Intervention: The manufacturers reported a comprehensive list of known adverse reactions in the Moderna COVID-19 EUA Fact Sheet and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 EUA Fact Sheet including severe reactions of anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Bell’s Palsy and death. On April 13, U.S. health officials temporarily suspended the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine over concerns of potential fatal blood clotting disorders. In the event of an adverse reaction, participants are not eligible for compensation because COVID vaccines are shielded from liability under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of March 2020 as a “countermeasure.”
  • Alternatives: There is a research-based meta-analysis of more than 562 studies of effective preventative alternatives including long-term established therapeutics of Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and vitamin D.

Fertility risks

In addressing concerns about infertility, Cersovsky definitively stated, “I can tell you for certain that’s not the case.” Although pregnant women were excluded in the original clinical trials, Cersovsky claimed that over the past several months after vaccine rollout there is a ”very robust data set that the CDC has and others … very safe vaccines for use in pregnancy.”

Cersovsky added that for pregnant women, “the safety profile has been excellent. No adverse events in that group, just as we have seen in the broader population.”

Yet Cersovsky did not mention that as of April 16, 462 pregnant women reported adverse events related to COVID vaccines to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. The reports included 132 reports of miscarriage or premature birth.

The CDC is currently enrolling pregnant women in the v-safe COVID-19 Vaccine Pregnancy Registry, and has confirmed 4,478 pregnant women, but the CDC has yet to publish a report from the v-safe registry nor publish data from healthcare systems in the Vaccine Safety Datalink to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

It is manipulative and unethical for anyone to claim there is no risk in pregnancy, in the absence of evidence the drug is safe in pregnancy.

Cersovsky claimed there are benefits in pregnancy from the vaccine that are neither established by data nor research. He asserted:

“ … there are advantages, especially in pregnant women, in getting the vaccine. One, it protects them because they may be at higher risk from severe outcomes if they do get infected. Two, there’s the ability to pass on — what is called passive immunity — to pass on some of that immunity to the fetus, to the unborn child which will persist for many months after birth. So that gives the baby some protection too.”

Cersovsky refuted any possibility of the vaccine impacting the fertility of women, declaring,“there is no possible mechanism for that to happen.”

However, if there were no mechanism of reproductive risks, then why is the CDC dedicated to studying the unknown effects of the vaccine through the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which states: “Miscarriage and stillbirth that occurs among people who received COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy; Adverse outcomes in pregnancy following COVID-19 vaccination, including: Pregnancy complications, Birth outcomes, Infant outcomes for the first year of life (includes infant death, birth defects, and developmental disorders)?

Cersovsky is gaslighting women in uniform.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) assessment report of the Moderna mRNA-1273 COVID=19 vaccine reported in March the following for the developmental and reproductive toxicity in female rats: “The overall pregnancy index was numerically lower in mRNA-1273-vaccinated female rats (84.1%), compared to control animals (93.2%).”

The CDC declares pregnancy outcomes are unknown because the clinical trials did not scientifically study developmental and reproductive toxicity in female or male humans in the experimental design, and yet irresponsibly the CDC assumes no risk to pregnancy based on what “experts believe.”

According to the CDC statement on pregnancy and the COVID19 vaccine:

“Limited data are available about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for people who are pregnant. Based on how these vaccines work in the body, experts believe they are unlikely to pose a specific risk for people who are pregnant. However, there are currently limited data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant people. Clinical trials that look at the safety and how well the COVID-19 vaccines work in pregnant people are underway or planned. Vaccine manufacturers are also monitoring data from people in the clinical trials who received vaccine and became pregnant. Studies in animals receiving a ModernaPfizer-BioNTech, or Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen (J&J/Janssen) COVID-19 vaccine before or during pregnancy found no safety concerns. CDC and the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) have safety monitoring systems in place to gather information about vaccination during pregnancy and will closely monitor that information. Most of the pregnancies in these systems are ongoing, so we don’t yet have information on the outcomes of these pregnancies. We need to continue to follow pregnancies long-term to understand effects on pregnancy and infants.”…