A Midwestern Doctor: It's Time for COVID Accountability So This Can Never Happen Again

Een van de accounts die ik volg is de substack van "A Midwestern Doctor". Meestal diept hij in zijn artikelen een medisch onderwerp tot de bodem uit, vaak kritisch en altijd leerzaam, met speciale aandacht voor de complementaire geneeskunde. Over bloeddruk, DMSO, Ozempic, lichttherapie, cholesterol, zeta-potentieel etc. In zijn artikel van 12 november doet hij iets anders: hij deelt zijn visie op de Covid-respons. Een overzicht vanuit zijn perspectief, ook vanwege de aankomende Trump/Kennedy-periode. Bij dat artikel zijn nog vele, vele aanvullingen te maken dus het is bij lange na geen complete opsomming. Het is vooral interessant omdat het van zo'n onderlegde en kritische medicus komt.

Een opvallend detail daarbij is dat hij niet terugdeinst om Steve Kirsch te noemen als iemand die herhaaldelijk bewijs heeft aangedragen voor de schadelijke aspecten van de Covid-vaccins. Als je -zeker in Nederland- met de naam 'Steve Kirsch' aan komt zetten, ben je bij de meeste 'experts' per definitie af. Hij doet het toch. Wie naar Kirsch verwijst als bron, zet zijn standpunt bepaald geen kracht bij - althans niet in de ogen van wie het op voorhand toch al niet eens is met kritiek. Hoe onrustbarend of aantoonbaar valide zijn cases ook zijn, hij wordt aan de kant geveegd. Omdat hij vaak fout zit? Vast, maar vooral omdat hij ook vaak goed zit.

The work of Wouter Aukema is also discussed.

I find it admirable that A Midwestern Doctor refers to such sources. It indicates that AMD is a truth seeker, looking for advancing insight. You simply don't find that in the consensus.

Hereunder His article in Dutch.

It's time for COVID accountability so this can never happen again

A Midwestern Doctor, 12 Nov 2024

COVID-19 was arguably the worst public health disaster in history, and as more and more people are now realizing, most of it could have been prevented if the medical industry had been less greedy during the pandemic and not prioritized profits over people. This has shattered the unconditional trust that the industry has relied on for decades and in which it has invested heavily (for example, a large JAMA survey of 443,445 U.S. adults found that in April 2020, 71.5% of them trusted doctors and hospitals, up from 40.1% in January 2024).

Over the past month, I have received many requests to highlight some of the egregious behaviors of our healthcare authorities during the pandemic. At the time, it didn't feel like the right time to publish this, but now it does (for example, because something can be done about it).

In dit artikel wil ik me richten op een paar kritieke aandachtsgebieden die blootgelegd moeten worden als we beginnen met het verkennen van een COVID-verantwoordelijkheid - een van de belangrijkste kwesties die de Trump-administratie en de rechtbanken in de nabije toekomst zullen moeten aanpakken.

Bribed medical journals

When RFK Jr. ran for president, he stated that he would prioritize addressing the widespread corruption in medical journals (where pharmaceutical companies bribe them to publish favorable literature) by threatening to sue them for racketeering unless they separated from the pharmaceutical industry:

(Video starts at the right time and stops after approx. 3 minutes)

Hoewel dit al een lang bestaand probleem is, werd het veel erger tijdens COVID-19 toen we academische tijdschriften herhaaldelijk onzinnige studies zagen publiceren die gebruikt werden om alle concurrerende COVID-19 therapieën de mond te snoeren. De Lancet publiceerde bijvoorbeeld een studie die “bewees” dat hydroxychloroquine mensen doodde, wat resulteerde in een wereldwijde opschorting van proeven met hydroxychloroquine - maar bijna onmiddellijk werd bewezen dat de studie een bedrog was, omdat de dataset die erin werd geclaimd veel tekenen van fraude vertoonde en nooit verkregen kon zijn, waardoor de Lancet de studie uiteindelijk moest intrekken.

As Pierre Kory has meticulously documented, this corruption of magazines resulted in:

• A continuous stream of forged articles in the top medical journals mentioning the use of ivermectin in COVID-19—were all widely sensationalized in the media.
• Medical journals that refuse to publish anything suggesting that the COVID-19 vaccines were dangerous and articles that somehow made it are being retracted.

Van de substack "Medical Musings of Pierre Kory"

• In addition, scientific journals published highly misleading presentations of private data used to claim that the vaccines were safe. The best example of this was the CDC's V-Safe data. This app was created to track the symptoms of vaccination recipients so that its safety could be scrutinized, but it was never made public (until ICAN got its hands on it through lawsuits). In addition to the FOIA database which showed that the vaccines were extremely harmful, we also found that the Lancet study, which was based on the data and used to show that the vaccines were 'safe', was highly misleading and did not accurately reflect the V-Safe data.

Please note that much of this censorship was made possible by the fact that PubMed (the primary tool that most scientists and doctors use to search the medical literature) is allowed to choose which journals are indexed and as a result, journals that are willing to publish controversial research are not indexed and thus never seen to the excretion of COVID-19 That showed that vaccinated individuals can cause harm to unvaccinated people in their environment, but despite a year of work, that team has still failed to get their study published in an indexed journal, with the result that there is "no evidence" that shedding exists. Daarom geloof ik dat er, naast RFK's voorstel voor afpersing, een mechanisme moet komen dat ervoor zorgt dat “politiek incorrecte” tijdschriften beschermd kunnen worden tegen PubMed censuur.

Regulatory corruption

Throughout COVID-19, we have seen numerous red flags about the danger and ineffectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines. And yet, regardless of the data or how much the vaccines are not delivering on their promises, the FDA and CDC continue to approve and then mandate the vaccines while insisting they are safe and effective. This has led many to suspect that these bodies are corrupt, especially because:

• The Government Accountability Office interviewed employees of these agencies who stated that political interference caused their agencies to adopt policies that went against the scientific evidence during COVID-19.
• Leading wetenschappers in de FDA's afdeling voor de goedkeuring van vaccins namen ontslag because they were pressured by the Biden administration to approve an unnecessary COVID-19 booster.
• Over the past three years, Steve Kirsch (and others such as Clare Craig) repeatedly tried to force the CDC and FDA to look at data that refuted their claims that the vaccines were safe and effective, but in each case their data was rejected or ignored.
• One of the most telling stories came from Brianne Dressen, a participant in an AstraZeneca vaccine trial who became seriously ill from the vaccine and was then permanently abandoned by both AstraZeneca and the FDA (which led to her being React19 , one of the only groups standing up for the victims of COVID-19).
• When Dressen initially experienced vaccine damage, the NIH and FDA were very interested in what had happened to her and wanted to help, but once they realized the extent of the injuries the vaccines had caused, they moved on to attempts to sweep everything under the rug and deny that people like Dressen existed (the NIH postponed the publication of a study that they had promised because it showed that the vaccines did indeed cause neurological injuries).
• Onlangs vond ik een opname van een van React19's gesprekken met de FDA, met Peter Marks, de directeur van het FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (waardoor hij de persoon is die verantwoordelijk is voor vaccins en gentherapieën). Daar toonde hij herhaaldelijk “empathie” voor degenen die door de COVID-vaccins ernstig gewond waren geraakt, maar tegelijkertijd gebruikte hij elk denkbaar excuus om te zeggen dat er niet genoeg bewijs was om te suggereren dat er inderdaad een veiligheidssignaal was.

(The source article states hereunder the English audio playback, duration: 1:03:44)

I found this conversation remarkable because it highlighted the behavior that the FDA has been exhibiting for decades, because what Peter Marks said sounded "nice and appropriate on the surface," but he:

• Created a series of impossible benchmarks that could never be met to establish that the vaccines were harmful.
• Didn't seem really concerned about the fact that many of the people had gone bankrupt due to their injuries and couldn't get compensation because "there's no evidence that the vaccine causes these side effects".
  Note: Marks has also repeatedly ignored Steve Kirsch's requests to look at data that clearly showed that the COVID-19 vaccines were killing large numbers of people.
• Continued to state that more research needed to be done and that the FDA and the NIH were working on it
  (which in FDA language means that it'll never be done).
  Note: This is somewhat analogous to how the FDA repeatedly told Congress that they were not biased against DMSO, that they were eager to handle all applications for DMSO drugs and would do so in the near future, but at the same time refused to let any other committee (rather than the one that had already rejected each application) review these applications. As you can imagine, decades went by And this never happened.
• Ever refused to specify what criteria had to be met to associate a complication with the COVID vaccine (or define what "rare" meant), instead they always said it was someone else's decision (e.g., their statistician who didn't think the evidence was strong enough).
• Wax not familiar with much of the current literature on the evidence of vaccine harmfulness.
  Note: In the DMSO saga was a journalist with every FDA commissioner he interviewed surprised at how little knowledge each FDA commissioner had about the toxicity of DMSO despite it being by far the most controversial drug in America.

Leaks in German regulations

Recently, 10GB of internal data at Germany's RKI (essentially a combination of the FDA and the CDC), who had continually promised to release their COVID-19 documents (but always kept them heavily), was leaked by a whistleblower.

As this press conference shows, the leaks (which independent analysts have been going through for the past 4 months) essentially confirmed what many of us suspected about the COVID-19 response:

For example:

• At the time the lockdowns were implemented, RKI leaders knew that the seasonal spike in respiratory diseases was on its way out. However, in their internal communications, they stated: "You can see that the curve is slowly flattening, but we should avoid drawing attention to this in our external communication, to encourage compliance with the measures." Also they believed that COVID-19 was less dangerous than the flu and that there was no justification for keeping children out of schools.
  This meant that the closures were totally unnecessary (because COVID would go away on its own) and that the massive social and economic damage caused by the closures was societal sabotage.
• They knew that it didn't make sense to conduct mass testing on asymptomatic individuals (because all it yielded was to breed fear of COVID-19 and waste money on testing, which became a billion-dollar budget in America).
  Note: Scott Atlas MD repeatedly tried to convince the White House COVID task force of this same point, but was constantly silenced by Deborah Birx and Anthony Fauci.
• Because there were no reasons to give the vaccines to children (and many groups were against it), the RKI put a lot of work into finding ways to bring them to market effectively (and unfairly downplay the severity of vaccine reactions). Given that the COVID vaccines have injured (or killed) large numbers of children who were never at risk from COVID-19, this is also an important point for the future.
• The RKI knew there was never any evidence to support the vaccination mandates because, contrary to what they told the public (as did the CDC), they knew that vaccines do not prevent transmission.
• They knew that their mask mandates were nonsensical and that they could make the situation worse.
• The German political leadership repeatedly pressured the RKI to do things that they felt were not scientifically justified during the COVID response. Similarly, documents also show that there was international pressure (e.g., from the French president and NATO) to do so, again illustrating that this was a globally coordinated effort.
• The courts have begun by acknowledging that the testimony given by the health agencies in support of the government's overreach was invalid because the agencies did not internally support what the government told them to publicly support ( a top official of the RKI gave this for instance in court). This is a hugely important point for the future as we seek accountability from the COVID and the restoration of the separation of powers on which our liberty and freedom depend.
• When the vaccines didn't work during the seasonal winter surge of respiratory diseases in the winter of 2021-22, chose the RKI, despite being aware of this failure of the vaccines, To side with the government and support the narrative that the winter wave of deaths was due to the unvaccinated.
• They Knew al in januari 2021 van cerebrale veneuze sinus trombose als levensbedreigende complicatie van de AstraZeneca klonterprik, maar 'vergaten' het publiek hierover te informeren.
• The RKI repeatedly sided with the government because they were afraid of being passed over and becoming irrelevant.
• The testing requirements for the unvaccinated to enter Germany had no scientific basis and were purely political in nature.
• FromCOVID-19 testing was highly inaccurate, so its use was not justified.
• RKI repeatedly wanted to downgrade the risk of COVID, but was put under political pressure not to do so and did not, waardoor de hysterie over het virus voortduurde - iets wat niet veel verschilde van de manier waarop we during the Bush presidency had constant reports that it was a red or orange terror alert day. despite never having any attacks (which is one of the many reasons we believed COVID-19 equated to the "Democratic War on Iraq").

There was strong political pressure to delay the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines until after the 2020 election. For context, during the pandemic, whenever Trump tried to propose a solution to COVID-19 alongside a vaccine (e.g., hydroxychloroquine), both the mass media and the FDA sabotaged this- wat afschuwelijk was omdat het gebruik van hergebruikte geneesmiddelen altijd de enige mogelijke manier was om de pandemie aan te pakken.

Trump stemde desondanks in met deze regels (omdat hij niet begreep hoe gewetenloos deze mensen waren) en voerde een grootschalig federaal programma uit om de ontwikkeling en inzet van de COVID-19 vaccins te versnellen. Echter, op het laatste moment stelden Pfizer en de FDA hun goedkeuring uit tot net na de verkiezingen om Trump's kansen om te winnen te vernietigen. Dit zou waarschijnlijk vergeten geschiedenis zijn geworden, maar omdat Trump 2024 won met een coalitie die zowel de FDA als de farmaceutische industrie verantwoordelijk wil houden voor wat ze de wereld hebben aangedaan, hebben die eerdere acties in de 2020 verkiezing hun beschermingslobby bij de Trump administratie teniet gedaan. This point is really important and should not be forgotten in the coming days as battles break out over the future of the FDA.
Note: The RKI files are discussed further by three prominent Substack journalists here, hereand here.

Corruption of the Vaccine Safety Database

Many people don't know that VAERS was created as part of the political conspiracies that led to the 1986 Vaccine Act (which granted legal immunity to the vaccine manufacturers). The Specific Reason Requiring the creation of VAERS was that doctors refuse to report injuries from vaccines, which were then used by regulators and pharmaceutical companies to claim that there was "no evidence of harm from vaccines." As a result, the medical establishment has continually sought to undermine VAERS (e.g., by chronically understaffing). Yet, it was forced to maintain it, (Although notifications are often not processed in the system and sometimes illegally removed).

Once COVID took off, VAERS did what it was supposed to do. Not only did it show that the COVID vaccines were incredibly dangerous, but it also revealed all sorts of subtle patterns in the vaccine lesions that researchers were able to replicate in other vaccine side effect databases. Despite this, the FDA and the CDC ignored all of this (in a way that was almost identical to what they were doing a decade earlier with the previous "most dangerous vaccine" Gardasil).

Although similar problems also occurred in other countries, because the laws requiring the databases were not as strict, some rather disturbing details occurred in Europe that the investigative journalist Sonia Elijah recently shared with me. Specific:

1. The portal of the EMA (the European FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System is designed in such a way that it is impossible to extract large amounts of data from it. Recently a researcher discovered how to overcome this limitation with a programming script was able to circumvent and found that far more side effects had been reported for the COVID-19 vaccines than for all other pharmaceuticals combined.

It also showed:

• that there is since 2023 has exploded in reports of two drugs (Keytruda and Inflectra), one of which is used for challenging cancers and one used for challenging autoimmune diseases. This, in turn, suggests that the COVID-19 vaccines have led to an increase in their use, especially since the diseases they treat among the most commonly reported side effects of the vaccines belong.
• De meest gerapporteerde bijwerking van de COVID-vaccins was...COVID-19, wat, zoals ik in een recent artikel heb besproken, ook is wat we hebben waargenomen (en what has been seen in other databases) and what I think is because the COVID-19 vaccine causes immune suppression, which causes a latent COVID-19 infection. This is especially frustrating because the standard way to cover up vaccine side effects is to attribute them to COVID-19 (e.g., in the COVID vaccine trials, the injuries were attributed to COVID-19 even if the individual tested negative for them and in the meeting I shared above, Peter Marks insisted that the MISC that occurred 1-2 days after vaccination was more likely to result from COVID infections that had occurred months before).
  Note: provoking disease has been a problem with vaccines for a long time (for example, it was known to cause polio and typhus) and it was best demonstrated with the HPV vaccine, (because it prevents existing HPV infections much worse Made and made them more likely to cause cancer).
• The EMA's data showed that heart attacks were one of the most common side effects of the vaccine, but unlike pericarditis and myocarditis, these were never listed on the warning labels.

2. In December 2021, a Dutch Member of Parliament We called for an investigation into the excess deaths that occurred in the Netherlands (because there was a Dutch database that could assess this), and this was passed unanimously in parliament. However, the Dutch government chose to defy parliament by blocking the request and, as forensic investigators recently discovered, by simply deleting the data.

In the process of the Government's decision to Covid vaccination records To be transferred to the Dutch Bureau of Statistics, more than 870,000 records were systematically deleted of people who had received their first dose of a Covid vaccine and subsequently died or emigrated (between the period of January 2021 and January 2024).

3. After This Shocking Discovery the same methodology was applied to the EEA database (made available via the script), where it was discovered that 40% of serious case safety reports (e.g. hospitalization and death) from the Covid vaccines from October 2021-November 2022 had been removed from the European Medicines Agency's database (while reports for no other pharmaceutical had been tampered with). In addition, many case safety reports were retroactively altered after the lockpoint of their data (which should not have happened).

Vaccine discrimination

One of the more troubling aspects of the COVID vaccine marketing program was that it incited hatred against the unvaccinated in order to pressure them to get vaccinated so they wouldn't spread COVID-19. Of course, this didn't make any sense, because apart from the fact that in January 2022 it was clearly known that vaccines do not prevent transmission in the first place. (and you are therefore more likely to spread COVID-19), the claim refuted the justification for the vaccines in the first place (because how can they "work" if they don't protect you from someone who is unvaccinated).

Unfortunately, because most of the propaganda is based on emotion rather than logic, this logical contradiction didn't matter (and in fact, it had already been beta-tested with the whooping cough vaccine because grandparents had been told not to visit their grandchildren without vaccination, despite the fact that the whooping cough vaccine was unable to prevent transmission).

This really gained momentum on 09/09/21, when Biden, due to lagging vaccine sales, ramped up the marketing campaign by declaring the unvaccinated a danger to society and putting in place his illegal mandates (which he justified with numerous "facts" that were known to be incorrect at the time he gave the speech). Many of us were shocked by this speech because it contained the same kind of language that has been used throughout history to pursue horrific policies against "undesirable" groups.

Unfortunately, this ploy not only worked (by forcing many of us to get fired or injured by a vaccine they had to take in order to put food on the table for their families), but it also fueled widespread hatred against the unvaccinated ( Doctors refused for instance provide essential care to the unvaccinated).

COVID vaccine trials

Because clinical trials are so expensive to conduct, pharmaceutical companies are incentivized to protect their investment by exaggerating efficacy and covering up side effects—especially since they are never reprimanded for doing so (for example, I recently discussed the almost appalling rate of clinical trial fraud which successfully disguised how incredibly dangerous the HPV vaccine was). The most egregious examples I've seen of this are:

• Superior Whistleblowers (and examinations of the study reports themselves) have shown that the studies were not blinded.
• Vaccinated patients who had COVID-19 were often not PCR tested on COVID-19 (which invalidated the whole point of the trial, as vaccine efficacy was based on not having a positive PCR test for COVID-19).
• Many people who suffered serious injuries from the vaccines were told that their injury had nothing to do with the vaccine, they received no medical care for the injury, and then it was written down as a benign symptom (e.g., "functional abdominal pain" instead of permanent disability or "lymphadenopathy" instead of T-cell lymphoma), even when external (pro-vaccine) doctors agreed that there was an incontrovertible link to the vaccine. Also testified a researcher that adverse reactions in the vaccinated were deliberately not reported.

Remarkably, despite the fact that numerous trial participants and researchers complained about this to the FDA, the FDA did not do so.with evidence of the allegations), nothing but to inform Pfizer of the The Whistleblower (who was then promptly fired). Since then, she has been working on a protracted lawsuit against Pfizer for fraud against the United States (which the government unfortunately opposes).
The clinical trial fraud is especially significant because that data convinced doctors and lawmakers around the world that the vaccines were indeed safe and effective, harassing people who reported injuries and blatantly discriminating against the unvaccinated.

COVID Lawsuits

Now that the public realizes that the vaccination mandates were a case of massive government interference and not legal, there is an increasing push for lawsuits (for example, there are several conferences held to create a framework to hold accountable the organisations that pushed through the mandates).

Gradually, these lawsuits begin to have success, which is important because each lawsuit sets a precedent for others. For example:

• On 13 January 2022 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Biden's vaccination mandate in the workplace was illegal. For reference, this mandate was justified by OSHA's responsibility to protect workers from workplace hazards and the COVID-19 vaccine preventing transmission, when in reality, they not only did not, but also posed the greatest workplace hazard that American workers have faced in history.
• On October 24, 2022 the New York Supreme Court reinstated about 1700 city workers who had been fired for not being vaccinated (with back wages) because the COVID-19 vaccine did not prevent transmission and therefore there was no reason to dismiss them.
• In July 2024 settled the Army in a class action lawsuit involving 36 members of the Navy's Special Warfare community who had been fired for not getting vaccinated.
  Note: on 21 August 2024 Trump promised to reinstate servicemen who were fired for not being vaccinated with back pay.
• In 2021, BART (a public transportation system in the San Francisco Bay Area) voted 8-1 in favor of requiring vaccination for their employees, despite the fact that it was known at the time that the vaccine was ineffective in preventing infection and that it did not cover the circulating strains. As a result, employees with religious exemptions from vaccination were fired instead of a (temporary) adjustment of their working conditions. Six of them filed a lawsuit and October 25, 2024 a federal jury unanimously sided with the fired employees and awarded them a total of $7.8 million. I asked Yale epidemiologist Harvey Risch (who testified as a witness at the trial) for his comments on this, part of which read as follows:

• In August 2023, a Blue Cross Blue Shield employee sued them for denying her (valid) religious exemption for the COVID-19 vaccine and then firing her (because she did not want to vaccinate). On November 8, 2024 a federal jury ruled in her favor and awarded her 12.7 million in damages.
  Please note: there are also larger lawsuits (e.g. from the attorney general of a state) demanding criminal sanctions against those who are complicit in the implementation of the disastrous COVID-19 policy. At the moment, much of what is happening is taking place in the background, so many are unaware of these lawsuits.

Vaccine exemptions

Een van de fascinerende dingen van ons tijdperk is hoe vaak de afschuwelijke acties van nazi's en Hitler worden aangehaald om een politiek standpunt te rechtvaardigen (bijv. het niet kiezen van Trump) door mensen die zich bezighouden met activiteiten die veel lijken op wat in nazi-Duitsland werd gezien. In an earlier article heb ik bijvoorbeeld benadrukt hoe de (soms dodelijke) medische discriminatie waarmee niet-gevaccineerden te maken kregen, veel leek op wat de nazi's met hun Joodse burgers deden.

Een centrale vraag die altijd naar voren komt in deze discussies is of een individu bereid zou zijn geweest om het persoonlijke risico op zich te nemen om diegenen die het doelwit waren van de nazi's in zijn huis te verbergen of een buurman zou hebben verraden die precies hetzelfde deed. Helaas ben ik tot de conclusie gekomen dat de mensen die het meest uitgesproken zijn over het eerste (verbergen) in werkelijkheid het tweede (aangeven) gedaan kunnen hebben.

Tijdens COVID-19 bijvoorbeeld, heeft Harris' running mate Tim Walz set up a hotline where people could report their neighbours who violated lockdowns (who could then be fined or imprisoned), and thousands of Notifications were received.

Dit bracht ethische artsen begrijpelijkerwijs in een moeilijke situatie - het vaccin toedienen was in strijd met elke eed waar ze voor stonden, maar als ze dit niet deden, konden ze ernstige professionele gevolgen krijgen. Om bijvoorbeeld de weg te bereiden voor de mandaten, California developed a strategy to mandate vaccinations in schools unless the child had a medical exemption and doctors who wrote "inappropriate" medical exemptions immediately lost their medical licenses, creating a climate of fear in which ethical California physicians were unwilling to write medical exemptions.

Please note: Because all vaccines are "safe and effective," any medical justification for an exemption will always be rejected. To illustrate, I had a friend who had a previously documented life-threatening anaphylactic reaction to PEG, but nevertheless did not get an exemption for the PEG-containing COVID vaccines. Similarly, I had a friend who had an anaphylactic reaction to the first COVID vaccine and was not exempted from the second (bearing in mind that previous anaphylactic reactions are one of the only recognized contraindications to vaccines). Even worse, I heard from a patient who had been admitted to an ICU in California due to myocarditis from the vaccine. Yet not a single doctor there was willing to take the risk of writing an exemption for the second vaccine in the workplace.

Als gevolg daarvan voelden veel medewerkers in de gezondheidszorg zich ethisch gedwongen om valse vaccinatiekaarten te schrijven, hetzij voor hun directe collega's (veel medewerkers in de gezondheidszorg kregen valse vaccins) of voor hun patiënten. In een paar gevallen werden ze echter gepakt (a specialist in data entry became a for instance condemned up to three years probation for entering false vaccination records for 14 state employees).

In one of the most well-known cases, a German nurse was suspected of about 3,600 people have been injected with saline instead of the vaccine. What I found particularly interesting about this case was that the health authorities urgently instructed the people who had received the saline injections to get vaccinated immediately so that they would be protected from death from COVID-19, but "a spokesperson for the Ministry of Health of Lower Saxony [said] that there was no evidence that severe COVID-19 infections occurred as a result of saline injections".

Another individual, Dr. Michael Kirk Moore is a 59-year-old plastic surgeon from Utah (along with 3 co-defendants who assisted in the trial), was charged with fraud against the government at the behest of the CDC because his team allegedly:

• threw away more than $28,000 worth of government-issued coronavirus vaccines.
• administered saline injections to minors at their parents' request so that children would think they were receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, eventually producing at least 1,937 doses of falsified CDC COVID-19 vaccination cards.
• He charged a small fee for many of these cards (e.g., $50 donated to a health freedom charity, which is less than what the process would have cost his office).

Dr. Moore is currently facing 15 years in prison and he has tried to have the charges dropped on the grounds that he could not ethically give the vaccines to children (citing the necessity defense) and that the state of Utah (which did not punish Dr. Moore) and not the federal government had jurisdiction to sue Dr. Moore.

Helaas verwierp een rechter op 14 oktober deze argumenten en de zaak gaat nu verder met een rechtszaak. Ik heb Dr. Moore gevraagd naar zijn zaak. Hij benadrukte me dat hij in een moeilijke situatie terecht kwam, maar dat hij ervoor koos om het te doen (met een groot persoonlijk risico en aanzienlijke financiële kosten - hij verloor geld op elke vaccinatiekaart die hij gaf) omdat hij het een ernstige schending van zijn medische eed vond om dit vaccin te geven aan kinderen die een aanzienlijk risico liepen en geen voordeel hadden bij het krijgen ervan.

De zaak van Dr. Moore illustreert opnieuw hoe moeilijk het huidige medische systeem het voor artsen maakt om het juiste te doen (tenzij het heimelijk voor hun collega's wordt gedaan) en ik hoop oprecht dat het toenemende bewustzijn over de schade en de leugens rondom het COVID-19 vaccin de nieuwe regering zal motiveren om deze aanklachten in te trekken.

Conclusion

Normally, there are two things that can bring about change in the American political system—new laws being passed or criminal cases that cause governments and companies to implement policies and procedures to prevent this from happening in the future.

I am hopeful that both will happen in the near future and it is my intention to do what I can to promote their implementation. However, I also believe that there is a unique opportunity to do much more now.

Second, many of the basic structures of our health care agencies naturally encourage corruption and health disasters. To remedy that, radical changes are needed and I believe RFK Jr. is one of the most suitable people to do that. As such, one of my goals in the near future (and what I've been trying to lay the groundwork for over the past year) will be to lay out the policy changes that I believe need to be implemented to make America healthy again, which I strongly suspect RFK Jr. is already planning to implement.

It's hard for me to put into words how angry and distraught I am about what happened with COVID-19 (which is why I've given so much of myself to this publication). But at the same time, I believe that nature always corrects itself in the end. To some extent, the pharmaceutical industry's incredible greed was a blessing in disguise, because it was so egregious that it created a situation akin to "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs" and woke up the public to what they've been doing for decades, finally giving us a way to stop the steadily increasing corruption, that has consumed our health care and society.

Moreover, this outrage is not unique to the United States, and many other political movements have also formed to oppose this wave of medical tyranny (a significant portion of the data we have on the harmfulness of the COVID-19 vaccines was obtained, for example, by a German political party). Consider, for example, this 2023 speech by the Prime Minister of Slovakia, in which he condemned the WHO's overreach, the corruption in his government, and the treatment of the people questioned by the vaccine:

Or this later speech (which he gave briefly before barely surviving two gunshots in the abdomen and one in the shoulder), in which he stated that his government would investigate and prosecute the corruption within the Slovak government that made the COVID-19 disaster possible:

In turn, I believe that if serious actions are taken against the COVID-19 cartel in America and their misdeeds are publicly exposed, it will unleash a global campaign against this corruption. All of this is a unique opportunity that I never expected in my life, and I sincerely thank each and every one of you for making this possible.