The jab: add GENDER DYSPHORIA to the Adverse Events

‘I recently asked my readers to tell me about their chronic health conditions.

The single most important conclusion is this:

In all 58 conditions we asked about where we had sufficient data to compute an odds ratio, the vaccine always made the condition worse.

Other important results of the survey include ……

14.5X higher likelihood of sexual orientation/gender dysphoria issues in people under age 60 (OR 14.49 [95% CI: 2.33- 598.86]). This is a stunning result that isn’t discussed. Basically, 93% of the cases of sexual orientation issues are caused by vaccines.’

Steve Kirsch’s newsletter on Substack, 4 April 2024 (https://kirschsubstack.com/p/new-survey-confirms-that-vaccines?r=o7iqo&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web )

Survey demographics given by Kirsch are as follows::

  1. Over 13,000 responses, average age=55
  2. Breakdown of the two comparison groups I used in the analysis:
    1. Fully unvaccinated: 2,355 responses, average age=55
    1. Highly vaccinated: 2,260, average age = 49
  3. 63 conditions tested
  4. 44 conditions had odds ratio (OR) >=2 which means vaccines are the single largest cause of that condition
  5. 14 conditions had OR of 1.3-2.0 which means vaccines are a significant cause of that condition (23% of the cases or more are attributable to vaccination)
  6. The remaining 5 conditions had insufficient data to compute an odds ratio (p-value >.05).

The more we look, the wider we look, the deeper we look, the more we find – snowballing evidence of crimes against humanity.

The jab: Deja vu in the Spanish Flu playbook?

The “Spanish Flu” killed an estimated 50-100 million people during a pandemic 1918-19. What if the story  we have been told about this pandemic isn’t true?

What if, instead, the killer infection was neither the flu nor Spanish in origin?

Newly analyzed documents reveal that the “Spanish Flu” may have been a military vaccine experiment gone awry.

In looking back on the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I, we need to delve deeper to solve this mystery.

Summary

  • The reason modern technology has not been able to pinpoint the killer influenza strain from this pandemic is because influenza was not the killer.
  • More soldiers died during WWI from disease than from bullets.
  • The pandemic was not flu. An estimated 95% (or higher) of the deaths were caused by bacterial pneumonia, not influenza/a virus.
  • The pandemic was not Spanish. The first cases of bacterial pneumonia in 1918 trace back to a military base in Fort Riley, Kansas.
  • From January 21 – June 4, 1918, an experimental bacterial meningitis vaccine cultured in horses by the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in New York was injected into soldiers at Fort Riley.
  • During the remainder of 1918 as those soldiers – often living and traveling under poor sanitary conditions – were sent to Europe to fight, they spread bacteria at every stop between Kansas and the frontline trenches in France.
  • One study describes soldiers “with active infections (who) were aerosolizing the bacteria that colonized their noses and throats, while others—often, in the same “breathing spaces”—were profoundly susceptible to invasion of and rapid spread through their lungs by their own or others’ colonizing bacteria.” (1)
  • The “Spanish Flu” attacked healthy people in their prime.  Bacterial pneumonia attacks people in their prime. Flu attacks the young, old and immunocompromised.
  • When WW1 ended on November 11, 1918, soldiers returned to their home countries and colonial outposts, spreading the killer bacterial pneumonia worldwide.
  • During WW1, the Rockefeller Institute also sent the antimeningococcic serum to England, France, Belgium, Italy and other countries, helping spread the epidemic worldwide.

During the pandemic of 1918-19, the so-called “Spanish Flu” killed 50-100 million people, including many soldiers.

Kevin Barry, President, First Freedoms Inc, 13 November 2018

( https://vaccineimpact.com/2018/did-military-experimental-vaccine-in-1918-kill-50-100-million-people-blamed-as-spanish-flu/ )

When the cv scare campaign was launched upon us, the dire precedent of the Spanish Flu was deliberately referenced.

Media fear-mongering is designed to take the oxygen out of the room, and to imprint messages, not to encourage independent thinking or objective research.

This article is not new, and neither is its content. I thought it useful to post the reference so that those who are open to a contra-narrative have a place to start.

In responding to the cv threat and particularly in the mandating of vaccines, the orchestrated response of those in charge has been to dance away from the whole causation question.

Time to pick your partner for the last dance.

The jab: Mandates ruled unlawful by Queensland Supreme Court

 

The Guardian and other media, 27 February 2024 (see eg https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/feb/27/covid-vaccine-mandate-queensland-emergency-workers-police-ambulance-unlawful

For the judgment transcript please see https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/caselaw/qsc/2024/2

I am pleased but not euphoric.

Legal argument can excel in dissection but meanwhile miss its objective – which is justice for all.

We are not there yet. This is an important next step,

Not many will have the appetite for a reading of the whole transcript. Below I have reproduced a few sections from a cursory reading of the judgment, and then added my comments in italics, including embolding of relevant text.

The case involved identifying specific rights, and then determining whether they had been limited (ie impugned) and whether that limitation was justified at the time ….

[69] Section 8 of the HRA (AD: Human Rights Act) defines what is required for a decision to be compatible with human rights:

“8 Meaning of compatible with human rights
An act, decision or statutory provision is compatible with human rights if the act, decision or provision—
(a) does not limit a human right; or
(b) limits a human right only to the extent that is reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in accordance with section 13.”

[70] The applicant bears the onus of establishing that the decision imposes a limit on human rights.

[71] If that is established, the respondent bears the onus of justifying the limit.

[72] An act or decision will limit a human right if it “places limitations or restrictions on, or interferes with, the human rights of a person.” This inquiry involves considering the scope of the right. The scope of the right should be “construed in the broadest possible way” by reference to the right’s “purpose and underlying values”.

[73] In Certain Children (No 2) Dixon J suggested a two-step process for assessing incompatibility (AD ie the measure is too heavy-handed):

(a) The plaintiff/applicant for human rights relief need only establish prima facie incompatibility before the burden shifts to the defendant public entity to justify the limitations caused by their action/decision.
(b) The burden on the public entity to justify limitations is high, requiring a degree of probability commensurate with the occasion, and must be strictly imposed in circumstances where the individual concerned is particularly vulnerable. {AD: This case reflects preoccupation with the risk from the Covid virus, on the part of the agencies and on the part of the judge. It was clear from the outset that the risk from the virus was minimal for the average person, and presumably less than that for the police cohort. It was also obvious early on that adverse events were occurring from the jab at an unprecedented scale. Risk assessment was poor or missing in action by the agencies involved, and did not properly encompass the vaccines that were the very concern of the applicants.}

[81] Although the memorandum referred to “evidence from other jurisdictions” no such evidence was provided. Further, the “modelling” referred to was just a document created for the financial year 2019/20 entitled Queensland Police Service Daily Policing Demands. It did not provide any predictions of the effect of the pandemic on the QPS. (AD: Do we call this a misleading statement, incompetency, or just a lie? And will the liar be held to account?)

[135] I am not satisfied that the Commissioner has demonstrated that she gave proper consideration to the human rights that might have been affected by her decisions. She could not have seen HRCA No. 1 before making the decision to issue Direction No. 12 and it is more likely than not that she did not receive HRCA No. 2 until after deciding to issue Direction No. 14. Her evidence about considering either HRCA No. 1 or HRCA No. 2 was, at best, inconclusive and, at worst, unreliable.

[136] The Commissioner has failed to demonstrate that, before making either Direction No. 12 or Direction No. 14, she:

(a) understood in general terms which of the rights of the persons affected by the decisions might be relevant and how those rights would be interfered with by the decision;

(b) had seriously turned her mind to the possible impact of the decision on a person’s human rights;

(c) had identified the countervailing interests and obligations; and

(d) had balanced competing private and public interests as part of the exercise.

[137] Further, I do not accept that the Commissioner had:

(a) either identified the human rights that might be affected by the decision; or

(b) considered whether the decision would be compatible with human rights.

[138] The “proper consideration” that needs to be given under s 58(1)(b) or s 58(5) engages a standard of consideration higher than that generally applicable at common law to taking into account relevant considerations. That consideration was not given.

[139] It follows that, by failing to give proper consideration, the making of each of those decisions was unlawful.

[176] So far as any review of the Directions was concerned, the Commissioner gave evidence that there was no formal process for reviewing the directions to ensure that the limits imposed on human rights remain. (AD: Process failure, by accident, by incompetence, or deliberately.)

[277] Section 13 of the HRA provides that human rights may be limited in certain conditions:
“ Human rights may be limited
(1) A human right may be subject under law only to reasonable limits that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.
(2) In deciding whether a limit on a human right is reasonable and justifiable as mentioned in subsection (1), the following factors may be relevant—
(a) the nature of the human right;
(b) the nature of the purpose of the limitation, including whether it is consistent with a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom;
(c) the relationship between the limitation and its purpose, including whether the limitation helps to achieve the purpose;
(d) whether there are any less restrictive and reasonably available ways to achieve the purpose;
(e) the importance of the purpose of the limitation;
(f) the importance of preserving the human right, taking into account the nature and extent of the limitation on the human right;
(g) the balance between the matters mentioned in paragraphs (e) and (f).”

(AD This case shows up a deficit in the items listed in Section 13 of the HRA. It needs to include specifically the risks associated with or inherent in the limitation measure itself, as a prerequisite to any objective measure of the associated risk:benefit.)

[301] The applicants argue that the Directions engage this right on the basis that the Directions compel an individual to be vaccinated with a medicine that has the potential for life-threatening side effects and, therefore, it is sufficient to limit the right to life. They go on to say that a balancing exercise may need to be undertaken between the risks of vaccination against the benefits of vaccination and that that should be done on a case-by-case basis. The real point made is that the individual risks associated with vaccination are not required to be considered under the Directions. (AD The wording here is ambiguous. Who is making the point? The judge? The applicants? Surely ALL risks associated with a proposed Direction need to be considered, first the general ones and then the individual ones. A proper risk assessment would have ruled out the mandates without any need to delve into individual risks.) (And The right to Life is read narrowly, thereby frustrating real justice.)

[303] The First Respondent refers in her written submissions to decisions of the European Commission about vaccination schemes. Those decisions do not assist. The first refers to Article 2, paragraph 1 of the European Human Rights Convention which speaks of states being obliged to take adequate measures to protect life which is a different concept to that expressed in s 16.86 (AD The local wording is reflective of Australia’s generally low standard when it comes to framing human rights legislation. The EU wording (below) is consistent with a higher onus on the defendant once the issue has been raised.) In the second case, only one of the applicants was able to proceed because all the others were held not to be “victims” as required by the case law of the Commission. The one applicant who could proceed was denied relief because:

“The Commission recalls that this Article primarily provides protection against deprivation of life. Even assuming that it may be seen as providing protection against physical injury, and intervention such as a vaccination does not, in itself, amount to an interference prohibited by it. (AD: This is rubbish. If the jab causes death and serious injury, and yes, in a somewhat arbitrary way, of course it is captured as warranting protection. A French court has ruled that to take the jab voluntarily is consistent with suicidal thinking.) Moreover, the applicant has not submitted any evidence that, in the particular case of his child, vaccination would create a real medical danger to life”. (AD: If no evidence was submitted, it is a sad omission. The evidence abounds.) (And what about shedding?)

[306] So far as this application is concerned, the underlying argument for the applicants is not that s 16 has been breached, rather that the Directions should have contained a provision which required that each individual’s circumstances be considered. Whether a particular person’s circumstances were such that the application of the Direction might create a risk was the highest that the applicants could argue on this point. There was no contention that a vaccination would arbitrarily deprive any particular applicant of his or her life. (AD: Again, if there was no contention, it is a sad omission. The evidence abounds)

[307] This right was not limited. (AD: I differ.)

[308] Section 17 provides:

“17 Protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
A person must not be
(a) subjected to torture; or
(b) treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way; or
(c) subjected to medical or scientific experimentation or treatment without the person’s full, free and informed consent.”

[333] The right in s 17(c) is limited. (AD: Agreed)

[383] The experts did express some opinions about those matters, but the relevant issue was when certain evidence was known or otherwise available. A Commissioner of Police or a Director-General of a department is not expected to resolve questions of transmissibility and the like. But they are expected to receive, consider and weigh relevant evidence as it becomes available so that it may inform their decision making. This was a trial about the lawfulness of certain directions not about the effectiveness of vaccines against COVID-19 and its variants. (AD: And as I observed earlier, the whole issue of the inherent RISK of the VACCINES was missing in action.)

[426] Professor Griffin was of the view that there were no reasonably available alternatives to vaccination. (AD: This was of course the official narrative, and was disputed from the outset, by multiple subject matter experts, and proven to be false. The sad irony is that we would have been far better off if government had not done a thing to intervene.)

[451] Neither the Commissioner nor Dr Wakefield gave close attention to the possible range of solutions. Each was presented with a proposal for mandatory vaccination with little in the way of well-developed critiques of alternative means of reducing illness and infection. (AD: A process failure, hard to fathom, echoed across Australia.)

[459] There is no formula which can be used to consider this balance. But, having taken into account the matters argued by the parties, I am not satisfied that the balance is in favour of the applicants and so I conclude that the limit imposed on s 17(c) has been demonstrably justified in the terms of s 13.

(AD:  I am not satisfied by the ‘balance’ reflected in this judgment.  A reminder about what 17c says:

“A person must not be … (c) subjected to medical or scientific experimentation or treatment without the person’s full, free and informed consent.”

No-one on the planet has been fully informed as to the risks associated with the jabs, because so much information has been withheld or falsified, both generally and at point of administration, about their risks and the incidence of death and injury; and because of the media’s fear campaign which massively overstated the risk from the virus; and because of the coercion associated with mandate compliance.)

[460] It also follows from that that the applicants have not established any ground under the JRA of unreasonableness. (AD: I differ, obviously. This is the greatest example of lawless overreach in Australia’s history.)

 

What does the Bible have to say about all this?

“Whoever says to the guilty, “You are innocent,” will be cursed by peoples and denounced by nations. But it will go well with those who convict the guilty, and rich blessing will come on them.” (Prov 24:24-25)

The jab:  “a full ventilation of all the facts”

The statement

FASA (the Freedom Alliance of South Africa, AD) has approached the High Court in Pretoria, South Africa, to review and set aside the authorisation of Pfizer’s vaccine products on the basis that the authorisation was irrational and unlawful.  If successful this will result in the removal of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccines from the domestic market.  The case is under the custodianship of Advocate Erin-Dianne Richards, briefed by Daniel Eloff of Hurter Spies.  The lawyers explain the significance of the case:  “FASA’s aim is to subject the South African regulator’s decision to judicial scrutiny.  They argue that the regulator’s decision was based on flawed and inaccurate trial data analysis presented by a heavily conflicted Pfizer, and that it is therefore legally invalid.  Their aim is not only to ensure legal compliance – but to set precedent requiring a higher level of statutory scrutiny in the case of future vaccine authorisations in the interest of public health.  Whatever the decision of the Court, this case is important.  While it has arguably been possible to suppress and distort facts in the public narrative either for or against the vaccines, this will not be possible before our Courts.  This case will see a full ventilation of all relevant facts pertaining to South Africa’s authorisation of the Pfizer vaccines.”

The source

Dr Aseem Malhotra (@DrAseemMalhotra), eminent UK cardiologist, in a tweet ( https://twitter.com/DrAseemMalhotra/status/1641322215143530497 )

See also https://theprint.in/world/british-indian-medic-backs-legal-review-of-covid-vaccine-in-south-africa-high-court/1482252/

The application was lodged on 23 March 2023.

My take on it

Dr Malhotra, who is a co-applicant, recognises that that this case has significance beyond South Africa:

“South Africa’s Constitution and its Constitutional jurisprudence has motivated, inspired and led the World.  My personal hope is that here, too, the South African judiciary will lead the way towards a global rectification of a serious injustice.”

I share his hope, and I pray that it is so.  To date it would seem to me that courts in other jurisdictions have flown in the face of reason to find ways of avoiding “a full ventilation of the facts”.

But Why ?