Dr  Mercola

• The vaccine industry intentionally deceives us about the risks and benefits of vaccines in order to make a profit, with complete disregard for human suffering and the destruction of public health over time
• One of the reasons the polio vaccine doesn’t work is because polio isn’t caused by an infectious virus. It’s caused by toxins. Poliovirus is a commensal virus that is completely harmless in the absence of toxic onslaught
• The changing of definitions is part of the vaccine industry’s playbook. The definition of a “vaccine” was radically altered to allow for the use of experimental modified RNA gene therapy
• Another part of the fraud is using another vaccine as the control in lieu of a true placebo. You simply cannot prove a vaccine is safe by comparing it to another, most likely unsafe, vaccine
• According to Dr. Suzanne Humphries, there are no worthwhile vaccines, not even smallpox or tetanus. Tetanus can be successfully treated using high-dose intravenous vitamin C and other essential nutrients
• Vitamin C works because tetanus is a bacterial disease caused by an obligate anaerobe that cannot survive in the presence of oxygen. Other oxidative therapies that could be used if the infection is related to a wound include hydrogen peroxide and ozone therapy

In this interview, Dr. Suzanne Humphries discusses the recent update to her classic book, “Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History,” published in 2013. “Dissolving Illusions” is one of my favorite books on vaccines, so I was honored to write the foreword for this 10th anniversary edition.

The ‘Safe and Effective’ Narrative Is a Carefully Fabricated Illusion

That word, “illusions,” is an apt one, because the vaccine industry really is all about promoting illusions. They intentionally deceive us about the risks and benefits of vaccines in order to make a profit, with complete disregard for human suffering.

“What I’ve learned over 15 years of really immersing myself in this is that it’s the same old story over and over and over again,” Humphries says. “Sometimes people ask me, ‘What is the driver? Why do they do this?’ My answer is that I cannot completely answer why. Yes, certainly, there’s greed involved, especially today, but I think there’s probably some more sinister operations at play.

The one thing we can say is that for 225 years, the same story has been repeated over and over again, which is that vaccines come out, and they make previous diseases that were not really very problematic worse. The vaccines cause problems.

The death rates were always coming down for any disease before any therapy came in at all, whether it’s an antibiotic or a vaccine … Trying to help humans live better, longer lives, to strengthen their bodies and their resilience, that’s always been the key.

Yet at the same time, there’s been this dampening force over humanity, contaminating the blood of humanity with animal products and disease, viruses and spores and things that you can’t even imagine. They used to call the smallpox vaccine ‘pure lymph,’ but it was pus. It’s a horror story. It’s always been a horror story. So, to me, COVID was just another day at the office.”

Malicious Acts

In the interview, Humphries recounts the impetus behind the book. She first became aware that vaccines might be problematic when she was working as a nephrologist in northern Maine.

After a three-years-long struggle with the hospital administration, who refused to listen to any of her concerns, she finally got out, paid off her student loans and moved into a pop-up camper on a friend’s farm in Virginia, where she wrote the first edition of “Dissolving Illusions,” together with Roman Bystrianyk, who had been researching the history of disease and vaccines since 1998.

She spent the next seven years giving lectures around the world, and got her fair share of death threats. The brake line on her car was sabotaged, someone shot a crossbow arrow into the ground in front of her front door, and an obvious nut job detailed how he intended to torture and kill her in horrible ways. All for speaking out about the hazards of vaccines and the lies that keep the vaccine industry going.

“I think it’s because when you’re someone that has credibility — I was considered a top doctor in Maine, as a nephrologist — and comes out saying what I was saying, it is a big threat. It’s not necessarily that I was some important person, but it was where I came from,” she says.

CDC Has Been Hiding Vaccine Injuries for Years

Humphries also recounts how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been hiding vaccine injuries by deleting reports filed.

“I started reporting these vaccine injuries to the CDC. I would report them because my colleagues around me wouldn’t. But then they started bringing them to me, going ‘Here’s another one, Suzanne. Here’s another one.’ Each time I would report one, I would get a call from the CDC saying, ‘OK, someone else will be calling you,’ and then I’d get another call.

It was just a creepy, weird thing. Then after six months, I get a call from the main representative of the CDC, this doctor, and we had a flat out fight on the phone. He said to me, ‘What happened to you that you think all these vaccines are causing so many problems?’

I’m like, ‘What happened to me is that I’ve been watching it happen, and then you’re giving this live flu vaccine to children when the insert tells you exactly the symptoms you’re going to get, which is the flu.’ He’s like, ‘Well, that’s my specialty and that absolutely doesn’t happen.’ I said, ‘Well, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on that.’ He hung up on me, and that was the last I ever heard of him.

And guess what? They never made it to the VAERS database. They were deleted. I had the actual vaccine lot numbers. Everything was meticulously documented in these reports.”

What’s in the ‘Dissolving Illusions’ Update?

One of the silver linings of the COVID mass injection campaign is that it has awakened many to the notion that vaccines aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. The COVID shots are so toxic, even though the injuries are being swept under the carpet like never before, there are just so many of them that the carnage cannot be hidden. And, because government and health authorities refuse to acknowledge the problem, many are now questioning all vaccines, not just the COVID shot.

[…]

The Polio Illusion

Based on the available science, Humphries is convinced that one of the reasons the polio vaccine doesn’t work is because polio isn’t caused by an infectious virus. It’s caused by toxins. Poliovirus is a commensal virus that is completely harmless in the absence of toxic onslaught.

[…]

Are Viruses Real?

By now, you’ve probably heard the theory that there are no viruses, period. That the entire field of virology is a hoax, and that what we perceive as viruses are merely a type of cellular debris being shed when your body is trying to detox. Having delved deep into the science of infectious disease, Humphries disagrees with this theory. Viruses do exist. The question is whether they’re as dangerous as they’re made out to be.

[…]

Changing Definitions Is Part of the Illusion

The changing of definitions is part of the vaccine industry’s playbook. They had to do the same for the COVID pandemic. Not only was the definition of “pandemic” changed, but also the definition of a “vaccine,” to allow for the use of experimental modified RNA gene therapy.

[…]

Another part of the fraud is using another vaccine as the control in lieu of a true placebo. You simply cannot prove a vaccine is safe by comparing it to another, most likely unsafe, vaccine.

Yet that’s how it’s done. By using a toxic “control,” many of the adverse effects are automatically hidden as people in the control group end up suffering similar adverse events, and at a similar rate. This tactic was used in some of the COVID shot trials as well.

Why You Don’t Need a Tetanus Vaccine

According to Humphries, there are no worthwhile vaccines, not even smallpox or tetanus, and certainly not the polio vaccine. She’s treated several cases of tetanus in the last five years, including in at least one fully vaccinated individual, using high-dose intravenous vitamin C and other essential nutrients.

One of the reasons why this works is because tetanus is not a viral disease. It’s a bacterial disease caused by the Clostridium tetani bacterium, an obligate anaerobe. It can reside in soils, but it can also reside in your intestine where there’s no oxygen.

Oxygen is toxic to it. If you expose that organism to oxygen, as you do with vitamin C (because the metabolite of vitamin C is hydrogen peroxide), it’s instantaneously killed. Ozone therapy would likely be even more effective, for this reason.

So, if you get tetanus from a wound, the last thing you need is a tetanus shot or tetanus antibodies. All you need to do is apply ozone to the wound. It’ll instantly destroy the bacteria. Applying hydrogen peroxide would also work. As explained by Humphries, vitamin C is also a neutralizer of toxins, which is another reason it works.

Tetanus is a spore, and it transforms under anaerobic conditions into a toxin-producing organism. If you can neutralize the toxin and kill the microbe, then you’ve won the battle. One hundred percent, we’ve won the battle.

[…]

More Information

What people have to realize is that the schemes used to push the COVID shots is nothing new. “It’s pretty much exactly the same as it’s been for 225 years, where the recipients are not the beneficiaries of this technology and humanity is not getting healthier by any means as a result of it,” Humphries says.

To truly understand the vaccine industry’s modus operandi, be sure to pick up Humphries’ “Dissolving Illusions” 10th anniversary edition. It’s coming out in two forms: a standard hard copy, and a special coffee table edition. The standard hard copy has been translated into 10 languages, with more coming. Kindle and audio book formats are also available.

[…]

Via https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/02/25/dissolving-illusions-vaccines.aspx

Marat and Danon were both paid British agents during the Reign of Terror

Episode 29: The Revolution Devours Her Children

Living the French Revolution and Age of Napoleon

Dr Suzanne M Desan

Film Review

Dean begins this lecture by stressing that the Committee for Public Safety continued building the Republic and valiantly defended France against European invaders throughout the ten months of the Reign of Terror. By 1793, they had recruited and trained 750,000 troops, as well as passing taxes on the rich, building armaments factories and textile workshops to create jobs for poor women and public ovens; enacting food rationing; organizing public food distribution, abolishing slavery establishing free primary schools and selling former church and estate lands.

By winter 1793, France had suppressed the Vendée rebellion and began winning the war against the other European powers. The Committee for Public safety had arrested the most vocal Enragés leaders (the populists supported the Terror most strongly). They had also closed down the women’s clubs and limited section meetings (Ie neighborhood assemblies) to meeting three times a month.

In February 1794, Robespierre learned of a plot by British and Austrian spies, involving Jacques-Rene Hébert,* Danton and various revolutionaries who bribed National Convention officials to let them privately liquidate (pocketing the proceeds) the French East India company after the Committee banned all joint stock companies (in August 1793).

Hébert was arrested, tried and guillotined on March 24, 1794.  Georges Danton (a friend of Hébert), who had resigned from the Committee for Public Safety in reaction to the Reign of Terror), was arrested in April 1794. At the time he was actively organizing the Sans-culottes towards embracing more moderate positions. Believing they were about to seize control of the National Convention and crush the revolution, Committee president Maximilien Robespierre ordered the arrest.

The Committee stopped Danton’s trial when he began haranguing prosecution witness. Eventually ruling that all Terror arrestees be be tried in Paris and denied the right to legal representation or to call witnesses, they had Danton guillotined April 5, 1794.

*The followers of Jacques-Rene Hebert, editor of the radical political journal Pere Duchesne, were known as Hébertistes. They campaigned for a more revolutionary government that was anti-Christian and dedicated to the eradication of Girondistes and other moderates. Hébert was eventually arrested and guillotined for “participating in a foreign coup.”

**Although Desan acknowledges that Jacobin club infiltration by foreign spies was real, she tends to minimize its effect on the Reign of Terror. Other historians disagree. According to the late Lyndon Larouche and others, documents held at the the British Museum reveal that George Jacques Danton was the paid agent of the Duke of Orleans, a British Foreign Office agent paid through Barings, the powerful British merchant bank.

According to Larouche, the mob that released the 18 or so petty criminals imprisoned in the Bastille on July 14, 1789 were hirelings paid by the Duke of Orleans and led by Danton, also his paid agent. The goal was to crush plans by Louis XVI (whose support enabled American victory in the 1775-1783 Revolutionary War), Thomas Paine, and the Marquis de Lafayette, to create a constitutional monarchy in strategic alliance with the US. The British Museum also holds documents revealing Jean-Paul Marat (who, prior to his assassination, justified the Reign of Terror as a “political necessity”) was also a paid British agent.

According to Larouche, the ideological godfather of the French Reign of Terror, was Jeremy Benthem, the first chief of British Foreign Office intelligence. Benthem ran a radical writers workshop in Paris which prepared many of the inflammatory texts Danton and his supporters circulated. Danton ran a number of of agents of his own (paid via Perregaux Bank), according to papers found among his belongings after his death.

See also Danton, by Norman Hampson and Secret Service, British Agents in France 1792-1815, E.Sparrow (Boydell Press, 1999)

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/video/149323/149379

By Joe Lauria

On Day One of Julian Assange’s attempt to appeal Britain’s order to extradite him to the United States, his lawyers laid out a timeline that exposed U.S. motives to destroy the journalist who revealed their high-level state crimes.

Before two High Court judges in the cramped, wood-paneled Courtroom 5 at the Royal Courts of Justice, Assange’s lawyers argued on Tuesday that two judges had seriously erred in the case on a number of grounds necessitating an appeal of the home secretary’s decision to extradite Assange to the United States.

High to the left of the court, next to oak shelves with neat rows of law books, was an empty iron cage.  The court said it had invited Assange to either attend in person or via video link from Belmarsh Prison, where he has been locked up on remand for nearly five years. But Assange said he was too ill to take part in any capacity, his lawyers confirmed.

Vanessa Baraitser, the district judge who presided over Assange’s 2020 extradition hearing, and Jonathan Swift, a High Court judge, came in for heavy criticism from Assange’s lawyers. Baraitser in January 2021 ordered Assange released on health grounds.

But she refused him bail while the U.S. appealed. On the basis of assurances that it would not mistreat Assange in the United States, the High Court reversed Baraitser’s decision.  The U.K. Supreme Court then refused to take Assange’s challenge of the legality of these assurances and the home secretary signed the extradition order.

Assange’s last avenue of appeal is of the home secretary’s order as well as Baraitser’s 2021 decision, in which, on every point of law and many of fact, she sided with the United States. The application to pursue this appeal was rejected by a single High Court judge, Swift, last June.

He permitted his rejection of the application to itself be appealed. That two-day hearing began Tuesday before Justice Jeremy Johnson and Dame Victoria Sharp.

The Timeline

Assange lawyer Mark Summers made a forceful argument that the United States in essence is treating Assange no differently than any authoritarian regime would deal with a dissident journalist who revealed its secret crimes.

“There was evidence before the district judge that this prosecution was motivated to punish and inhibit the exposure of American state-level crimes,” Summers told the court. “There was unchallenged evidence” during Baraitser’s 2020 extradition hearing “of crimes that sit at the apex of criminality,” he said.

He said there was a direct nexus between Assange’s work to expose U.S. crimes and the U.S. pursuing him. “This is a prosecution for those disclosures,” he said. “There is a straight-line correlation between those disclosures and the prosecution, but the district judge (Baraitser) addressed none of this and neither did Swift.”

Summers then sketched out a timeline of events showing successive stages of motivation for the United States to go after Assange. “There was compelling circumstantial evidence why the U.S. brought this case,” he said.

First, he said, there was no prosecution of Assange (despite the Obama administration empaneling a grand jury) until 2016, when the International Criminal Court announced it would look into possible U.S. crimes in Afghanistan, following Assange’s disclosures.  The U.S. then denounced him as a political actor.

Summers said “that morphed into plans to kill or rendition Assange” from the Ecuadorian embassy, where he had asylum, following the Vault 7 release of C.I.A. spying tools in 2017.

The then new C.I.A. Director Mike Pompeo, in his first public appearance in that position, denounced WikiLeaks as a hostile, non-state intelligence service, a carefully chosen legal term, Summers said, that permitted taking covert action against a target without Congressional knowledge.

Because these plans to kill or rendition Assange, asked for by President Donald Trump, raised alarms with White House lawyers, a legal prosecution was pursued as a way to determine where to put Assange if he were renditioned to the U.S., Summers said.

“This prosecution only emerged because of that rendition plan,” he said. “And the prosecution that emerged is selective and it is persecution.”  It was selective because even though hundreds of other outlets, such as cryptome.org and Pirate Bay had published the unredacted diplomatic cables first, Assange was the only one charged.

“This is not a government acting on good faith pursuing a legal” path, he said.

Summers said Baraitser never raised the question of why six years went by after WikiLeaks‘ publication of Iraq and Afghan war logs before Assange was prosecuted and never asked what had suddenly triggered the U.S. to act against him.  Baraitser knew the ICC was going to investigate Assange’s Afghan exposures, Summers said.

“There was reasonable evidence to link the two, but the district judge didn’t mention it,” he said.  She also ignored the plot to kill or rendition Assange, even though she had heard evidence about it in her court.  “The district judge didn’t know that charges were brought [against Assange] to give sustenance to an illegal rendition plan,” he said.

A Political Offense

Summers said that Assange’s “exposure is a political act, a political opinion against state criminality.” And Assange lawyer Edward Fitzgerald called espionage, with which Assange is charged, a “pure political offense.” The issue is crucial to Assange’s defense because the U.S.-U.K. Extradition Treaty bars extraditions for political offenses.

However, the Extradition Act, Parliament’s implementing legislation of the Treaty, does not mention political offenses. Baraitser ruled that the Act and not the Treaty should take precedence.

Assange’s team has been arguing that he is wanted for a political  crime and therefore the extradition should not proceed.  They argued that the Act bars extradition for “political opinion,” which they equate with “political offense.”

A considerable amount of time in the five-hour hearing was thus spent by Assange’s lawyers making the point that Assange’s charges are political.  Fitzgerald argued that Britain has extradition treaties with 158 nations and in all but two (Kuwait and the UAE), political offenses are barred.

Assange’s work was to influence and change U.S. policy, Fitzgerald said, therefore his work was political and he could not be extradited for his political views or opinions.

Informants! 

Justices Johnson and Sharp appeared to be not extremely well-versed in the Assange case and seemed at times surprised by what they were hearing from Assange’s lawyers. But they had been prepared on the U.S. view of Assange allegedly harming U.S. informants.

What they didn’t know is that Assange had actually spent time redacting the names of U.S. informants from the Diplomatic Cables, while WikiLeaks‘ mainstream partners in 2010 did not.

Justice Johnson asked before lunch whether there were cases where someone had published the names of informants and were not prosecuted. After the break, Summers offered the example of Philip Agee, the ex-C.I.A. agent who revealed undercover agents’ names, some of whom were harmed, but he was never indicted for it.

Summers also mentioned The New York Times publishing names of informants in the Pentagon Papers. “The New York Times was never prosecuted,” Summers said. However, Richard Nixon indeed empaneled a grand jury in Boston to indict Times reporters but after it was revealed the government tapped whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg’s phone — and thus also the reporters’ — the case was dropped.

Despite their apparent unfamiliarity with the Assange case both judges seemed intrigued by its serious political, legal and press freedom issues. They are senior judges who might be less susceptible to political pressure.

The Death Penalty

The judges may also have been surprised to learn that under U.S. law and practice, (in this case with agreement from the British government), new charges could be added to Assange’s indictment after he would arrive in America.  The Espionage Act, for instance, carries a provision for the death penalty if committed during wartime.

Britain does not have the death penalty and cannot extradite someone who could face capital punishment. Though the U.S. could offer Britain diplomatic assurances that it would not seek the death penalty against Assange, so far it has refused.

Fitzgerald also seemed to shock the courtroom by speaking of instances in U.S. courts where someone convicted for one crime could at sentencing receive time for another offense he or she was never tried for.

He expressed concern that though Assange was never charged with the Vault 7 C.I.A. leak, he might still be sentenced for it. He also said that at sentencing the rules of admissibility could be discarded, for example to consider evidence that was obtained through surveillance.

First Amendment 

The judges may have been surprised to hear that the U.S. prosecutor in Virginia has said he may deny Assange his First Amendment rights during trial on U.S. soil because he is not a U.S. citizen. Pompeo stated more categorically that Assange would be without First Amendment protection.

Stripping the right of free speech is a violation of Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights, Assange’s lawyers argued.

[…]

Via https://consortiumnews.com/2024/02/20/day-one-assange-timeline-exposes-us-motives/