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.

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?

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?