The jab:  Two reasons why it’s called ‘the clot shot’

The statement

“When I do the embalming, I have to go into the vein. And in order for the embalming process, I have to allow blood to be drained. So I actually pulled this huge, long clot — fibrous looking clot — out prior to an embalming.  It just isn’t normal.  Typically, a blood clot is smooth; it’s blood that has coagulated together. But when you squeeze it, or touch it or try to pick it up, it generally falls apart … you can almost squeeze it between your fingers and get it back to blood again. But this white fibrous stuff is strong. It’s not weak at all. You can manipulate it, it’s very pliable. It’s not hard … it is not normal. I don’t know how anybody can live with something like this inside of them.”

The source

Richard Hirschman (Board-Certified Embalmer and Funeral Director) on The Dr. Jane Ruby Show

(https://www.brighteon.com/7341ab43-5bdd-41d2-bb6a-e9e7660b012d )

See also interview of Richard Hirschman by Steve Kirsch (https://deeprootsathome.com/embalmer-reveals-novel-widespread-fibrous-clots-in-65-of-cases/ )

(‘Richard Hirschman has been a board-certified embalmer for over 20 years. In 2021, he started noticing very odd fibrous blood clots that he had never seen before.

In Jan 2022, 60+% of his cases exhibited these fibrous clots. The only rational conclusion is that the clots, which have proven deadly to their owners, are all associated with the COVID vaccines.  Nobody from the mainstream media or medical community wants to touch this story. It’s not just Hirschman who is seeing this; it is everyone in the industry he’s talked to about it. They are seeing it, but Richard is the only person in the US (to my knowledge) willing to speak out about it.’  (Steve Kirsch, as above)

My take on it

In the case of deaths following the jab, autopsies have been the exception rather than the rule.

Maybe we could call an embalming a ‘Clayton’s Autopsy’, the autopsy you have when you are not having an autopsy.

It would appear that within the industry, the increasing incidence of unusual clots following the jab is an open secret.

Hirschman attests to a conspiracy of silence, beyond the industry, for the usual reasons.

The jabs cause clots.

“I don’t know how anybody can live with something like this inside of them.”

Evidently you can’t.

Knowing what we now know, taking the jab is a suicidal risk, according to the French Courts.

Knowing what we know now, only a clot would take the jab.

Covid 19:  is Remdesivir a death protocol in hospitals?

The statement

“How is it possible that the United States of America, one of the top industrialized nations in the world, including in our healthcare systems, how is it possible that we still lead the world in COVID-19 deaths?

There’s only one thing we’ve done from the beginning that no one else was doing – and it was Anthony Fauci’s death protocol in hospitals using a drug called remdesivir that he knew would kill either a quarter to 30 percent of all people he gave the drug to in hospitals in five to 10 days.”

 

The source 

Dr Bryan Ardis, on the Pete Santilli Show, 24 March 2022 ( https://www.brighteon.com/5d2350df-0e57-492f-95a5-672f768928a7 )

See also Dr Ardis’ testimony to a senate hearing on 4 March 2022 https://rumble.com/embed/vu8503/?pub=4 )


My take on it

Dr Ardis’ thesis is that people being hospitalised for Covid-19 are being treated routinely with a proven-unsafe drug that attacks the kidneys, resulting in multiple organ failure and often death.; and that emergency care physicians are thinking that they are witnessing the progression of disease when in fact they are witnessing the toxic effects of an expensive pharmaceutical drug.

Dr Ardis referred to mortality data that he provided to lawyer Thomas Renz for analysis:

“According to CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) data, almost 26% of people put on Remdesivir die. But it is a huge moneymaker for the government and Big Pharma.”

 

 

Dr Paul Maric, one of the best ICU doctors in America, testifies about the dangers of remdesivir and the corruption in our medical system for prescribing it. Though it is deadly, doctors are being incentivized to use it on patients. Remdesivir killed more than 50% of the animals during its clinical trials. Yet the FDA still approved it.” ( https://drsircus.com/general/pharmaceutical-murder-with-remdesivir/ 14 April 2022)

Further damning evidence comes from the horrific performance of Remdesivir in a human clinical trial against Ebola. In that study Remdesivir had an over 50% death rate. (https://senatormastriano.com/medicalfreedompanel/ from 1h15m)

“The Palm Study Group investigated four drugs for the use of Ebola. The results were published on December 12, 2019, in the New England Journal of Medicine. That date is particularly important because that signaled the beginning of Covid. The Data Safety Monitoring Board of that study terminated the study of Remdesivir. TERMINATED, because Remdesivir INCREASED THE RISKS OF DEATH AND RENAL FAILURE. It was SUCH A TOXIC DRUG the Data Safety Monitoring Board terminated the use of REMDESIVIR.” (https://drsircus.com/general/pharmaceutical-murder-with-remdesivir/ )

Australia? As to designated treatment for Covid-19 post hospitalisation, basically the same story. Remdesivir was the first drug approved by the TGA for treatment of Covid-19 disease, for ‘adults over 18 years of age with severe COVID-19 symptoms who have been hospitalised’. It was approved on 10 July 2020, six months after the first confirmed case. (Prior to Remdesivir, no drug had been approved for this application, and the suggested use of hydroxychloroquine had been resolutely opposed.) Thirteen months after Remdesivir the first of a succession of monoclonal antibody drugs was approved, and then some others, generally for pre-hospitalisation application or for prophylaxis.

The jab:  insane coverup of adverse events reporting?

The statement

“Someone needs to hold them accountable and get the data from CMS [The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ] that Stephen Anderson at the CBER Division of the FDA said is where they are going to be pulling what they call Rapid Cycle Analysis every 7 to 10 days from December 14th 2020.  They are supposedly pulling reviews every 7 to 10 days of reported symptoms and adverse events to the shots. Have any of you seen any of these?  Not one have I ever seen.  The cover-up and corruption is insane.”


The source

Dr Bryan Ardis, in panel testimony to a Pennsylvania Senate Hearing on 4 March 2022

https://senatormastriano.com/medicalfreedompanel/ (from 1h13m14s )


My take on it

The transcript of Dr Ardis’ opening remarks is reproduced below for your convenience:

“In 2010 Harvard did a review for three years on VAERS data.

And they actually proclaimed in their document 2010 that less than 1% of all Adverse Events to vaccines were reported to VAERS.

Do you want to know why?  They said the Number One reason: doctors didn’t even know it existed, to report injuries to it.

Number Two: they said it got in the way of … the flow of their clinical day.  Not only were they going to write down the Adverse Events in their notes; they then had to go sit at a computer and do it secondarily again.  So it was just too tedious to take the time to go do that.

That was 10 years ago. 

Harvard asked the CDC to allow them to create a program to make it automatic and improve the speed at which it took to report Adverse Events to VAERS nationally.

The CDC took the consultant from Harvard who was assigned for three years, said ‘You no longer can talk to Harvard’, and they never heard from him again.

Six months of waiting.  They then published their review, from Harvard, after the CDC refused to help them improve the reporting. That was in 2010, just so you know.

Someone needs to hold them accountable and get the data from CMS [The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] that Stephen Anderson at the CBER Division of the FDA said [on 22 October 2020] is where they are going to be pulling what they call Rapid Cycle Analysis every 7 to 10 days from December 14th 2020.  They are supposedly pulling reviews every 7 to 10 days of reported symptoms and adverse events to the shots.

Have any of you seen any of these?  Not one have I ever seen.  The cover-up and corruption is insane.”

The Harvard VAERS Study referred to by Dr Ardis, the so-called Pilgrim Study, is viewable here: https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf

It wouldn’t be hard to improve the reporting of adverse events. The technological task is trivial. The lacking ingredient is the will to do it. The motivation, and the incentivisation, and the ignorance, are tilted against us. If medical practitioners were under as much regulatory pressure to report adverse events, as they currently are (in the case of the jab) not to report them, or to hide them, we would all know what is really happening.

Why, after 800-plus deaths in Australia alone following the jab, are we even having this conversation?

The jab: The deadly evidence is unequivocal

CE 530 - From Evidence to Causality: How do We Determine Causality?

The comment

“It is beyond any shadow of a doubt, it’s unequivocal, the vaccines are causing large numbers of deaths.”

The source

Dr Peter McCullough , 1 April 2022 ( https://rumble.com/vzc8pe-dr.-peter-mccullough-its-unequivocal-the-vaccines-are-causing-large-numbers.html )

My take on it

Following introduction of the Covid injection program, relevant agencies have been monitoring the incidence of adverse events, including deaths, following the injection. As always, the question has been asked, Are these adverse events caused by the injections; or are they simply associated with them?

In these circumstances there is an established set of criteria that can be applied in order to prove or disprove causation. They are called the Bradford Hill causation criteria .

In Australia 801 deaths have thus far been associated with the introduction of the Covid injection program, according to the latest (24 March) Weekly Report of Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). The TGA attributes just 11 of these deaths to the effects of the injections. Is that a reasonable conclusion? Is it based on comprehensive autopsies, for example? (No it’s not.) Is it based on the Bradford Hill criteria? (No it’s not.)

Dr McCullough applied the criteria. His conclusion is not a throwaway line, but the application of best practice.

It behoves the TGA to ‘go and do likewise’. To do any less is culpable negligence.

This report alone should be sufficient for those responsible to call an immediate halt to the injection program, based on the precautionary principle.

But will they?