‘The jab’ : 50,000 dead already in the US?

The comment

“We have now a whistleblower inside the CMS*, and we have two whistleblowers in the CDC**. We think we have 50,000 dead Americans. Fifty thousand deaths. So we actually have more deaths due to the vaccine per day than certainly the viral illness by far. It’s basically propagandized bioterrorism by injection.”

                                *CMS:  (US) Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services

                                **CDC: (US) Centres for Disease Control

The source

Dr Peter McCullough, in a June 11 webinar with German attorney Reiner Fuellmich and several other doctors.  (Yes, that was over a month ago.)

( https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2021/06/27/dr-peter-mccullough-whistleblowers-inside-cdc-claim-injections-have-already-killed-50000-americans )

Dr McCullough is professor of medicine and vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University and also teaches at Texas A&M University. He is an epidemiologist, cardiologist and internist and has testified before the Texas State Senate related to COVID-19 treatments. He holds the distinction of being the most widely cited physician in the treatment of COVID-19 with more than 600 citations in the National Library of Medicine.

My take on it

I thank God for whistle-blowers.  I have been praying for them to multiply, and it is happening.

Listen, you that have ears to hear with.

By any measure, Dr McCullough has credibility. And he is calling out the medical establishment as complicit.

The first step is for each individual to get past the understandable cognitive dissonance, and accept that this high crime is actually happening, in plain sight. The linked article above takes less than 5 minutes to read.  Please read it.

Then comes the natural question Why? 

The obvious answers aren’t pretty. Ignorance is the kindest candidate.

But while you are conjecturing, people are being harmed, on a massive scale.

Is it not more urgent to interrupt the roll-out of this toxic injectable gene therapy?  McCullough and Fuellmich are working on that, along with thousands of others.  Including me.

Silence is acquiescence.

Lock-down: “Stop this human sacrifice.”

The statement

“The leadership of NSW seems not to have considered any of these costs in deciding how to respond to the recent uptick in COVID cases. Where is the argument that the actions taken are expected to yield maximum total welfare? Why are we still focusing rabidly on COVID when the country hasn’t lost a person with that disease since last year and hundreds of people are suffering and dying daily of all manner of other things?

I deduce that total welfare is not the NSW government’s maximand. Consider that we are hearing disproportionately about counts of cases, rather than counts of people suffering symptoms or hospitalised. If we counted cases of all viruses that infect us, and treated them like the fearsome pestilence of the sort that COVID has been elevated to in the media, we would do nothing all day but hide under the bed. What matters is human suffering and death – not whether someone tests positive to a particular virus. …..

What is going on here is not the fight of our lives against a fearsome pestilence. It is politicians willingly sacrificing their people’s welfare, hoping the people see their actions as a sufficient offering. It’s the modern analogue of killing virgins in the hope of getting a good harvest.

We need to stop this madness.” 

The source

Professor Gigi Foster, UNSW Professor of Economics, in an op-ed piece in the Sydney Morning Herald, Monday 28 June 2021 ( https://www.smh.com.au/national/stop-this-human-sacrifice-the-case-against-lockdowns-20210627-p584o7.html )

My take on it

Professor Foster is asking the same questions – the right questions – that she raised at the outset. Where is the impact assessment that examines the case for such extraordinary policy initiatives? Where are the numbers? What metrics should we be using?

The absence of such impact assessment by government is a telling indictment.

Still the question is, Why?

One credible explanation is that a proper impact assessment would come out against these policies.

Does this mean that government is more committed to a particular course of action than it is to the public welfare? Ideological, rather than logical?

“There is a man who is wise in his own eyes. There is more hope for a fool than for him.” (Proverbs 26:12)

Has Professor Foster reached the only reasonable conclusion? “I deduce that total welfare is not the NSW government’s maximand.”

What pandemic? “No excess deaths from all causes globally in 2020”

The statement

Despite COVID getting the greatest media attention of any event since World War II, the latest data from a respected statistics website shows that, globally, the number of deaths from all causes for 2020 was no higher than expected, given previous years’ totals. In addition, the annual world death rate per one thousand in population has been steadily declining since 1950, from 20 per thousand in 1950, to 7.6 per thousand in 2020, the same as in 2019.  …

The data shows that total world deaths from all causes held steady at about 58.8 million per year since 2019. In 2017 the total was 58.7 million. If anything, global deaths were lower than expected last year, due to aging Baby Boomer demographics, which accounts for a slight, normal rise in deaths in most years.

In global terms, if excess deaths are the criteria, there was no pandemic.

The source

Corona Virus News, 9 June 2021

(https://coronanews123.wordpress.com/2021/06/09/global-data-shows-no-excess-deaths-worldwide-in-2020-massive-london-march-against-forced-injections-blacked-out-by-media/)

My take on it

At the outset some people were suspicious as to whether overall deaths would substantiate the doomsday claims.  With the passage of time the numbers are in.  They confirm the original suspicion.

The tragedy is that an orchestrated fear campaign has had its effect.   

Lock-down: Ten times more deadly than the virus?

The statement

new study from the University of California and Rand found that the lockdowns didn’t save lives, and may have actually resulted in more deaths than if no lockdowns happened at all.

The scientific study concluded that following the implementation of shelter-in-place policies, excess mortality increased and that the increase in mortality is statistically significant in the immediate weeks following implementation. ….

A deadly combination of exponentially increased suicidesdrug overdose, homicide, alcohol consumption, calorie consumption, delayed cancer screenings, spousal abuse, tuberculosis, and more is occurring. Researchers conclude this combination will outweigh deaths from COVID by multiples.

Data show very clearly that lockdowns have not only been completely ineffective, but they have been potentially as much as ten times more deadly than the coronavirus itsel

The source

DailyVeracity 26 June 2021 ( https://www.dailyveracity.com/2021/06/26/massive-new-study-confirms-lockdowns-did-not-reduce-mortality-and-may-have-caused-excess-mortality/ )

My take on it

More evidence – as if we needed it – that lock-downs have a negative net benefit.. To quote Benjamin Franklin, “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.”

And this research doesn’t appear to encompass the more recent cross-impact of gene therapy injections. To understand the adverse impact of lock-downs on people emotionally, is to understand how clever is an advertising program that makes freedom a condition of injection. Coercion by any other name. The consequent deaths and other adverse events will only tilt the case further against these policy measures.

Still the question is Why?

Why these counterproductive policy measures?

And why the continuing refusal to do proper impact assessments?