If we carefully analyze each aspect of the “world war” on COVID-19, we can see how each tactic and high-tech “weapon” has harmed human health, destabilized civil society and possibly disrupted the ecological balance between the human population and the virus, while enriching private interests and empowering financially captured government regulators.

Bill Gates has called the global response to COVID-19 a “world war.” His militaristic language has been echoed by Dr. Anthony Fauci and other architects of COVID-19 policy for the last two and half years.

To fight their “world war,” Gates and Fauci and their allies have deployed an arsenal of high-tech “weapons” and tech-enabled tools of social control — contact tracing apps, PCR tests, QR codes, digital passports, lockdowns, mask mandates, mRNA vaccines, social media censorship, mass surveillance and so on — with devastating consequences for civil societies, human health and even the environment.

As an advocate for wildlife conservation, I have been appalled as virtually all environmentalists, and most others on the left, have supported this disastrous high-tech “war” on COVID-19.

I believe that an ecological perspective reveals many of the flaws inherent in an aggressive high-tech attack on a pathogen, although most environmentalists have been too blinded by progressive political ideologies and the hysteria surrounding COVID-19 to see this truth.

In addition to criticisms leveled at pandemic policies by civil libertarians and public-health experts such as the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration — critiques that I appreciate — I tend to view the pandemic in accord with insights I have gained while trying to protect the planet’s biodiversity, a point of view that many critics may not have thought about, and may even be inclined to dismiss.

To me, the “war” on COVID-19 has been characterized by a destructive set of attitudes, beliefs and behaviors that appear to be deeply engrained in our political and economic institutions, and which form a pattern that should be recognizable to conservationists and ecologists:

1. Aggressive intervention in complex natural processes using new, poorly understood technologies designed to achieve narrowly defined short-term goals, with disregard for the potential long-term ramifications;
2. Profiteering by private interests that own the technologies, enabled by government entities and “experts” that have been financially captured by those interests;
3. Followed by a cascade of unintended consequences.

Each aspect of the “war” on COVID-19 can be understood in these terms.

To explain, I will first elaborate on how I see the global response to COVID-19 through the lens of ecology.

Ecology and aggressive technological “wars” against complex living systems 

“The first rule of ecology is that everything is connected to everything else,” wrote the ecologist Barry Commoner in the 1970s.

Or as the legendary naturalist John Muir, founder of Sierra Club (recently canceled by his own organization), wrote a hundred years before, “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.”

Ecological damage often ensues when people aggressively try to control complex natural processes to achieve short-term goals without truly understanding how those living systems work, or what the full range of ramifications will be, usually with new technologies that promise “progress” but have a variety of consequences that cannot be managed over the long run.

In my opinion, this is one reason why our global industrial economy, which interferes in natural processes on a massive scale across the planet, has brought about a multi-faceted ecological crisis that has seen a dramatic collapse in the planet’s biodiversity, including an average 70% decline in Earth’s wildlife populations since 1970, among other symptoms of environmental degradation (I won’t even mention the “C” word).

An example of an ecologically destructive practice that fits this pattern is the Big Ag/ Big Pharma industry’s worldwide chemical “war” on plant and animal pathogens using herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals.

The world’s most popular herbicide, glyphosate, has harmed global biodiversity over the last five decades and has potentially caused many human health problems, including cancer. (Acknowledging these harms is not to endorse the anti-farmer measures recently enacted in the Netherlands, Canada and elsewhere).

The “war” on insects waged via the widespread application of the chemical insecticide DDT in the mid-20th century also caused vast ecological damage across many species that Rachel Carson exposed in her book “Silent Spring” giving rise to the modern-day environmental movement.

Studies still link DDT to elevated risks of cancer in children and grandchildren of women who were exposed to the chemical decades ago.

A similar ecologically destructive practice is the “war” that has been waged for decades on apex predators like wolves, bears and big cats at the behest of industrial agricultural interests, often accomplished through the large-scale spreading of chemical poisons across landscapes, triggering negative “trophic cascades” throughout U.S. and global ecosystems.

I cannot help but notice that the high-tech “war” on COVID-19 resembles these industrial “wars” against the natural world in many respects.

The whole “war” concept is based on a militaristic, mechanistic way of thinking that is obsessed with exerting technological control over natural processes to achieve short-term aims — often eradication of a “threat” like a pathogen or a predator — but cannot recognize the long-term consequences of interfering in the complex set of biological relationships that support natural ecosystems, and that ultimately provide the basis for human health and well-being.

Gates exemplifies this mindset, with his techno-utopian beliefs that human pathogens are like computer viruses, that human biology can be manipulated like computer code, and that vaccines can be regularly “uploaded” into the human body like software updates.

He has a wrongheaded, war-like notion, as observed by economist Jeffrey A. Tucker, that “with enough money, intelligence, and power, along with technological know-how at the helm, [a virus] can be stopped in its tracks.”

Gates’s militaristic COVID-19 strategy of retreat (lockdowns and masks) and attack (mass mRNA vaccination) was never based on a wholistic understanding of how human populations interact with pathogens and co-exist with them over time, how individual citizens remain healthy or how human societies thrive.

“The pandemic is not a war,” says Indian activist Dr. Vandana Shiva, one of Gates’s staunchest critics, and one of the only prominent ecologists to criticize his COVID-19 policies.

“In fact,” she says, “we are part of the biome. And we are part of the virome [the set of all viruses present in the human body]. The biome and the virome are us.”

In other words, co-existence with pathogens is the rule in ecology, eradication of a pathogen from nature is the rare exception and declaring “war” on any part of a complex living system can have significant unintended consequences.

But for Gates and Fauci and others in power, waging high-tech “wars” on viruses is far more amenable to their interests than a humble approach based on the subtle principle of ecology (or the traditional precepts of public health prior to March 2020).

Using new technologies to control natural processes for short-term gain, with disregard for long-term ecological consequences, is the business model. In fact, the more ecological damage that is caused, the more that further technological interventions can be justified, raising the question of whether “unintended” consequences are in some cases intended.

As explained further below, the failure of each aspect of the “war” on COVID-19 can be described and understood in ecological terms, including lockdowns, masks, mRNA mass vaccination and even the origins of the virus itself.

Origins of the virus: Who is the real bio-terrorist, Mother Nature or Anthony Fauci? 

One of the great ironies of the global response to COVID-19 is that one of its prime architects, Fauci, may have been partly responsible for the pandemic.

Fauci and other powerful figures in the international bio-security establishment have long ignored the ecological risks of tampering with natural viruses using bio-weapons technology.

This is an important factor that may have led to the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan, China.

As soon as the pandemic started, Fauci immediately and vigorously began promoting the unproven theory that SARS-CoV-2 jumped naturally from wild animals to humans, and he even orchestrated a behind-the-scenes campaign to discredit alternative theories.

But evidence has been steadily mounting that the novel coronavirus quite possibly came from “gain-of-function” research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, funded in part by U.S. government grants approved by Fauci himself.

Jeffrey Sachs, a prominent Democrat and professor of sustainability at Columbia University, chaired a commission for The Lancet that investigated the origins of SARS-CoV-2 for two years.

He has said, “I’m pretty convinced it [the virus] came out of U.S. biotechnology, not out of nature . . . So it’s a blunder of biotech, not a natural spillover.”

Sachs has compiled evidence supporting the lab-leak theory, particularly regarding the existence of an unusual feature on the virus called a “Furin Cleavage Site,” which may have been artificially inserted in SARS-CoV-2.

I find Sach’s reasoning and the evidence he has presented persuasive, although as a wildlife conservationist I remain concerned about the potential for natural “spillover” of viruses from wild animals to humans.

Environmentalists, journalists, scientists and others who focus their attention exclusively on computer models of zoonotic transmission and statistical studies favoring the natural transmission theory, while turning a blind eye to the hard evidence supporting the lab-leak theory laid out by Sachs and others, including Matt Ridley and Alina Chan, authors of “Viral: The Search for the Origins of COVID-19,” are missing an important story. (Even Fauci now says he has an “open mind” about a possible lab leak.)

Most fail to realize that Fauci and other proponents of “gain-of-function” have long shown a reckless disregard for the risks of tampering with natural viruses, expressing a paranoid attitude toward nature that is the antithesis of respect for ecology.

Fauci and others claim that “Mother Nature Is the Ultimate Bioterrorist” to justify their Frankenstein-like efforts to hunt down the most dangerous viruses that exist in wild nature, take them to labs like the one in Wuhan and tinker around with them to make them more dangerous and deadly.

Their twisted logic seems to be that if they intentionally create superviruses, they can somehow anticipate and prepare for natural pandemics.

Most objective observers, however, say that “gain-of-function” is a military-industrial boondoggle that has no practical benefit whatsoever and dramatically increases the risk of pandemics (which, when they do occur, substantially increase the wealth and power of those funding and conducting the experiments).

“Gain-of-function research of concern involves the creation of new health threats,” Dr. Richard Ebright of Rutgers University recently testified before the U.S. Senate, “health threats that did not exist previously and that might not come to exist by natural means for tens, hundreds, or thousands of years.”

If environmentalists and others on the left were being true to their principles, they would denounce Fauci’s funding of bio-weapons experimentation and cry out for a worldwide ban on “gain-of-function” research in the same way that earlier generations of activists sought to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

“Gain-of-function” is already illegal under U.S. laws that Fauci appears to have found his way around.

It remains inconclusive whether “gain-of-function” research actually caused the COVID-19 pandemic, but its potential to have done so is a vivid example of how powerful actors like Fauci use technological tools to interfere with natural processes, with disregard if not outright contempt for the long-term ecological consequences, thereby creating opportunities to exercise more power.

Lockdowns: A failed bio-warfare strategy

Since 9/11 it has been part of U.S. bio-warfare planning to “lock down” the population in response to a deliberate biological attack or the accidental release of an engineered pathogen, which according to Sachs is exactly how SARS-CoV-2 escaped the bio-technology lab in Wuhan, China. (See chapter 12 of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” for a comprehensive summary of bio-warfare planning over the last 20 years).

In the Spring of 2020, this bio-warfare tactic — lockdown! — was unleashed on hundreds of millions of healthy Americans and billions of others worldwide without any understanding of the true long-term effects on human health and well-being, the vitality of our complex civil societies or the biological relationship between the population and the virus.

Authorities justified lockdowns and associated policies with oversimplified computer models that did not reflect biological reality, and which were based on the utterly false premise that limiting social contacts through the brute force of modern technology (contact tracing apps, QR codes, digital passports, mass testing, online schooling, social media messaging, etc.) would somehow “flatten the curve” of infections in some meaningful, non-temporary way.

The Great Barrington Declaration, authored by epidemiologists Jay Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, and Sunetra Gupta, of Stanford, Harvard and Oxford Universities, correctly predicted that lockdowns were incapable of containing or controlling the spread of the virus, which is now ubiquitous in every corner of the globe despite numerous countries enforcing lockdowns throughout 2020 and 2021.

By disrupting the normal functioning of society to the maximum extent, lockdowns caused immense collateral damage to the most vulnerable and marginalized people on Earth, including the global poor (100 million pushed into dire poverty by lockdowns in 2020, and 263 million more could crash into extreme poverty this year), working classes ($3.7 trillion in lost earnings in 2020 alone and now crippling inflation) and children (massive educational deficits and an unprecedented mental-health crisis).

Lockdowns led to deaths of despair from suicide and drug and alcohol addiction, depression, skipped medical treatments and other direct harms to human health, including the impairment of millions of immune systems due to lack of exposure to pathogens, leading to surges of infection with adenovirus, rhinovirus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), human metapneumovirus, influenza and parainfluenza, in addition to COVID-19.

Meanwhile, billionaires who own the technological armory of lockdown added a total of $5 trillion to their wealth from March 2020 to November 2021, and the world’s ten richest men, including Gates, doubled their fortunes due to the increase in the value of their holdings in Big Tech and Big Pharma attributable to “pandemic super profits.”

According to Oxfam International, “for every new billionaire created during the pandemic — one every 30 hours — nearly a million people could be pushed into extreme poverty in 2022.”

Lockdowns also empowered government bureaucrats (under the influence of Big Pharma, Big Tech and other multinational corporate interests) to rule by emergency decree, circumventing democratic processes and causing a massive worldwide rollback of basic civil liberties and human rights, which fell to various forms of tech-enabled control: free speech gave way to social media censorship, free movement to digital passports, and freedom to earn a living or get an education to bans on “nonessential” activity that forced commerce and schooling online.

The real story here is how elites used lockdowns to exert an unprecedented degree of control over society and each one of us.

[…]  

Toxic masquerade: The effects of petrochemical masks on health and the environment

Masks are “weapons” in the “war” on COVID-19 manufactured by the petrochemical industry that have caused enormous collateral damage to human health, civil society and even the environment.

Yes, surgical and N95-style masks are made from synthetic petrochemical fibers, i.e. plastic. As I have written about previously, billions of plastic masks have already ended up in the world’s oceans, where they directly harm marine life like sea turtles, whales and especially sea birds — masks are devastating bird populations around the world.

[…]

One study found that “wearing masks treated with high levels of PFAS for extended periods of time can be a notable source of exposure and have the potential to pose a health risk.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently warned that certain PFAS compounds are more dangerous to human health than previously thought and present a risk to human health even in very tiny quantities.

[…]

A research team from the Hull York Medical School in the UK found polypropylene and PET or polyethylene terephthalate, which are fibers from synthetic fabrics such as the material that surgical and N95 masks are made from, in lung tissue.

“The surprise for us was how deep it got into the lungs and the size of those particles,” their team leader said.

Clearly, public-health agencies never paused their mask campaign long enough to consider the obvious risks that petrochemicals pose to human health and the environment.

[…]

Despite all this collateral damage, masks made little to no difference in the spread of the virus throughout the U.S. and the world. As with lockdowns, public-health officials rationalized mask mandates with oversimplified computer models, and with ridiculous studies on mannequins, as well as small inconclusive observational studies, not a robust scientific understanding of disease transmission in complex human societies.

Randomized controlled trials conducted before and during the pandemic showed that mask policies did not significantly reduce community transmission of respiratory viruses including vCOVID-19.

Even if masks were shown to have some modest effect, officials who mandated masks across vast swathes of society relied on the same faulty short-term logic that characterized lockdowns: the simple-minded notion that temporarily “tamping down” transmission of a respiratory virus is a legitimate and meaningful goal, regardless of the collateral damage.

A new international study of 18,497 individuals unvaccinated against COVID-19 shows potentially illegal discrimination. “Such discrimination and restriction of liberties based on a medical choice may fall foul of relevant national anti-discrimination laws and international treaties,” concluded the authors.

A new study published Aug. 12 in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research showed evidence of potentially illegal discrimination against individuals who declined COVID-19 vaccination.

The study reported the survey results of 18,497 individuals unvaccinated against COVID-19 throughout the world who voluntarily offered personal information through the Control Group Cooperative — also known as the “Vaccine Control Group” — which is a citizen-led initiative that seeks to provide an “independent, worldwide, long-term study of the health outcomes of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-free.”

After collecting the survey results, the Control Group Cooperative invited a team of independent international medical researchers to analyze and publish the data.

The authors — including Robert Verkerk, Ph.D., from the U.K., Dr. Christof Plothe, D.O., of Germany, Naseeba Kathrada, M.B.Ch.B., of South Africa and Dr. Katarina Lindley, D.O., of the United States — said that “between 20% and nearly 50% of respondents, depending on region, reported being personal targets of hate, implying victimization, owing to their COVID-19 vaccination status.”

They added:

“Proportionately, rates of such victimization were highest in Southern Europe and South America and lowest in Western Asia and Southern Africa (although the number of respondents in the latter regions were also substantially lower).”

Moreover, the study authors noted:

“Such discrimination and restriction of liberties based on a medical choice may fall foul of relevant national anti-discrimination laws and international treaties, such as the United Nation’s International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UN Office of Public Information, 1966), which includes fundamental rights to liberty and security of person, freedom of movement, privacy, religion and belief, freedom of expression, and peaceful assembly.”

Teachers and nurses ‘most intensely impacted’ by medical choice discrimination

Verkerk — who led the study team and is the scientific director for the Alliance for National Health International — told The Defender in an email that their data showed teachers and nurses were the two professions “most intensely impacted” by discrimination for their medical choice to abstain from COVID-19 vaccination.

“In many countries,” he explained, “but most especially in Australia and Canada, they required vaccination for many employees as a condition of work.”

For instance, on Aug. 24 Sky News reported that the Education Department in Queensland, Australia, issued a letter stating they will dock up to 18 weeks of pay for unvaccinated teachers as a disciplinary measure for refusing COVID-19 vaccination.

The department claimed the teachers had “acted inappropriately” by ignoring the public health advice.

Such actions were reflected in the study data, Verkerk said.

“Survey respondents reported feeling more victimized by the respective government authorities than by the non-state entities,” according to the study authors.

“Rates of perceived discrimination were greatest among respondents in Southern Europe (61%), Western Europe (59%), Australia and New Zealand (57%) and South America (57%),” they wrote.

Based on their analyses of the survey data, the study authors included a list of contributing factors that they considered to likely be “major drivers of discrimination,” Verkerk told The Defender.

The authors’ list included:

• Widespread misunderstandings about, and overstated benefits of, COVID-19 “vaccines.”
• False claims over societal risks posed by the unvaccinated.
• Misleading or plainly false media or state propaganda.
• Coercion to ensure high rates of COVID-19 vaccination.
• Institutional mandates.
• The desire for in-group identity as explained by social identity theory (Scheepers & Derks, 2016).

Study results show ‘pandemic of the unvaccinated’ was misinformation

Verkerk told The Defender that the study data exposed the “nonsense” behind the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” narrative which claimed that COVID-19 infection rates were higher among those unvaccinated against COVID-19.

On average, one quarter (n = 4,636, 25.1%) of the survey respondents reported experiencing symptomatic COVID-19 at some stage during the survey period, the authors said.

“Most of the reported symptoms were rated as mild (14.4%),” they noted, and “8.7% were reportedly moderate and just 2% were reported as severe.”

They added that 3% (n = 556) reported experiencing an asymptomatic case of COVID-19.

Moreover, the study data showed that less than 2% of the cases required hospitalization. The authors said:

“Only 74 respondents out of the 5,196 (1.4%) who reported suspected or known SARS-CoV-2 infection also reported that they were hospitalized following infection.

“Therefore, outpatient or inpatient hospitalization was reported in just 0.4% of the full survey cohort.”

As a rough comparison, data from New York as of Aug. 22 indicates that 0.52% of vaccinated individuals over the age of 5 have been hospitalized with COVID-19.

Vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc and quercetin were used regularly by the majority of the cohort in treating COVID-19, they said.

Study a step toward comparative research between vaccinated and unvaccinated

Although the study included data only from individuals unvaccinated against COVID-19, the Control Group Cooperative’s ultimate goal is to collect large-scale health data from both those vaccinated and unvaccinated against COVID-19 and facilitate an “independent, comparative analysis to show whether the vaccine-free do, or do not have better long and short-term health outcomes.”

“Our belief,” the Control Group Cooperative said on their website, “is that without a vaccine-free control group to compare against, there is no true measure of the levels of safety and effectiveness proclaimed by governments and health organizations across the world.”

They added:

“Science demands that every experimental treatment must have a control group in order to properly evaluate its long-term success and efficacy.”

According to the Control Group Cooperative, the COVID-19 vaccines “were rushed out” under Emergency Use Authorization, using “novel technology without any long-term testing.”

The original control group for the “experimental treatment,” they noted, was eliminated several months after the trial commenced when the placebo recipients were offered the vaccine, “which the vast majority took. Therefore, there is no longer an official control group.”

The Control Group Cooperative is now an invaluable resource that serves as an international database collecting information from unvaccinated individuals.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/unvaccinated-covid-misinformation-discrimination/

On Aug. 22, The Pulse released a presentation by Dr. Madhava Setty, senior science editor at The Defender, that offered an effective way to engage healthcare professionals who are willing to discuss COVID-19 vaccine safety concerns.

“Those who were initially skeptical of the COVID-19 jabs have been proven correct over and over,” said Setty, “however, many of us have forgotten how to communicate with folks who have been subjected to sophisticated programming coming from mainstream media and our own public health agencies for a long time.”

Setty continued:

“We must realize that it is highly unlikely that there will ever be any open admission of the grave mistakes that were made by our entrusted officials. The truth about what was done will emerge from the bottom up, from us.

“The reason why this presentation has been so effective is because it is based on information everyone can agree upon, no matter how one feels about the pandemic response. When we methodically examine what was known at the vaccine campaign’s inception, we end up with far more questions than answers.

“There are no third-party opinions. I cite only data from the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration], the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and communiques from Pfizer. The information I offer here cannot be refuted, even by the most ardent vaccine proponents.”

But vaccine proponents have been entrenched in the “safe and effective” narrative for nearly two years. Nevertheless, Setty believes we are at a turning point:

“We have an opportunity to change public opinion in a big way right now. The CDC has recently announced ‘streamlined’ guidelines that make no distinction based on vaccination status. People are finally beginning to ask if their compliance and sacrifices were necessary and whether the proposed bivalent vaccines should be trusted.”

Part 1 of the presentation demonstrates how both mainstream and independent media platforms have been disingenuous. Setty then dissects the most relevant findings from the published Pfizer trial data and explains why former trial coordinator and now whistleblower Brook Jackson’s allegations are credible and damning.

Part 2, released on Aug. 25, explains how the FDA and the CDC use double standards to hide clear danger signals coming from their adverse event reporting systems while exaggerating the risk of COVID-19.

Pointing out double standards is often the only means available to dismantle dogmatic thinking, as Setty explained in a Defender article earlier this year.

The information offered is not new, however, it is presented in a way that is non-confrontational and instead engages curiosity.

“Obviously many of us are tired and frustrated after two years of being ignored, gaslighted and attacked,” said Setty.

“But the tide is turning. If we truly wish to protect our children from this experiment we must find a way to engage with those who have unjustly vilifi us. The battle for our children’s safety will be fought in our pediatricians’ offices and in conversations with our friends and family. We all have an important role to play right now.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/engage-effectively-battle-childrens-health/

Pfizer court-ordered, released data reveals the miscarriage rate among women whose pregnancy outcomes were known was 87.5%. The true rate may be higher or lower, as Pfizer did not record or report pregnancy outcomes for 238 of the 274 women known to be pregnant during the trial.

Story at-a-glance:

• Since the rollout of the experimental COVID-19 shots, U.S. health officials have adamantly claimed the shots are safe for pregnant women and their unborn babies.
• Meanwhile, now-released Pfizer court-ordered, released data — which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration wanted to hide for 75 years — reveals the miscarriage rate among women whose pregnancy outcomes were known was 87.5%. The true rate may be higher or lower, as Pfizer did not record or report pregnancy outcomes for 238 of the 274 women known to be pregnant during the trial.
• A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-sponsored study that was widely used to support the claim that the shot is safe during pregnancy misreported the data. The actual miscarriage rate in that paper was 82%.
• As of Aug. 12, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database listed 4,941 miscarriages post-COVID-19 jab. For comparison, the fetal death reports for all other vaccines reported to VAERS in the last 30 years is 2,239.
• Israeli research found the Pfizer COVID-19 jab impairs male fertility for three months after each dose, dropping sperm concentration by 15.4% and total motile count by 22.1%, compared to baseline.

Since the rollout of the experimental COVID-19 shots, U.S. health officials have adamantly claimed the shots are safe for pregnant women and have been urging all pregnant women to get the jab “to protect themselves and their babies.”

[…]

Via  https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccine-pfizer-pregnant-women-cola/

To this day, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends the COVID-19 shot for:

“… people who are pregnant, breastfeeding, trying to get pregnant now, or might become pregnant in the future.”

The CDC further recommends:

“People who are pregnant should stay up to date with their COVID-19 vaccines, including getting a COVID-19 booster when it’s time to get one.”

And claims:

“Evidence continues to build showing that:

• • COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy is safe and effective.
  • There is currently no evidence that any vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, cause fertility problems in women or men.”

All the while, they’ve had Pfizer data showing the shots cause shocking rates of miscarriage which, adding insult to injury, have been blatantly miscategorized as a “recovered/resolved” adverse effect.

Who in their right mind would consider DEATH a resolved side effect unless they had a depopulation agenda in mind all along?

I don’t see how this could be described as anything but a criminal cover-up. The only reason we know any of this is because U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman ordered the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to release Pfizer documents at a rate of 55,000 pages per month. The FDA and Pfizer had asked to release the documents at a pace of 500 pages per month, which meant it would take 75 years to disclose them all.

Criminal cover-up

Dr. Naomi Wolf recently reported that an analysis of Pfizer data revealed that 44% of the women in the trial suffered miscarriages. That statistic turns out to have been the result of a miscalculation, as Pfizer listed the miscarriages in two separate columns, resulting in them being counted twice.

We’ve repeatedly found Pfizer’s data collection and reporting to be all over the place, and seemingly on purpose, to make hazards more difficult to ascertain. Wolf admitted the error and took down the original report.

However, while fact-checkers are gloating over the perceived victory, there’s plenty of other evidence in the Pfizer material to demonstrate these shots should be banned for all time.

In an Aug. 20 Substack article, Dr. Pierre Kory addressed other, “absolutely horrifying,” findings on miscarriages found in the Pfizer data dumps:

“… let’s do a dive on just one page of the many thousands. See below, Section 5.3.6, Page 12 of the document called ‘Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports.’

“Looking at the first bullet under the header: Pregnancy cases: 274 cases including:

“In this paragraph, at first read, it is just a list of adverse events and numbers, detailed in a way that is confusing at best, and obfuscating at worst. I think it is the latter because, if you do some simple arithmetic trying to parse that paragraph, you end up with this:

“270 pregnancies were reported in vaccinated women during the first 12 weeks of the vaccine campaign. In 238 of them, ‘no outcome was provided.’ So, they only knew the outcome of 32 pregnancies reported. What happened in those 32 pregnancies they followed up on?

“My hands are literally trembling as I write this, but here goes. In these 32 pregnancies, there were:

• • 23 spontaneous abortions
  • 2 spontaneous abortions with intra-uterine death
    • So, 25 of the 32 pregnancies with known outcomes resulted in a miscarriage, a rate of 78%. Note that miscarriage normally occurs in only 12-15% of pregnancies
  • 2 premature births with neonatal death
  • 1 spontaneous abortion with neonatal death
  • 1 normal outcome

“Note that this only adds up to 29 known outcomes, but then they note that ‘two different outcomes were reported for each twin’ and then they talk about ‘fetus/baby cases as separate from mother cases.’ I have no idea how to interpret this explanation of outcomes, so it may have been one or two less (or more) deaths then.

“So, of the 32 pregnancies they knew the outcome of, 87.5% resulted in the death of the fetus or neonate. Burying this data in the way and not alerting the world to what they found, is criminal activity …”

To be perfectly clear, the failure to record and report the outcomes of 238 out of 274 pregnancies during a drug trial is simply unheard of. It’s shockingly unethical. And the fact that both the FDA and the CDC accepted this, and claim there’s “no evidence” of harm to pregnant women and their babies is proof positive of reprehensible maleficence.

There’s no fixing what’s gone wrong at the FDA and CDC. Their credibility with the public is ruined beyond any possible recovery.

The CDC can review and reorganize itself all it wants, but it changes nothing. They are, to this day, urging pregnant women to take a shot that they KNOW will cause babies to die. Calling it a dystopia of epic proportions is a profoundly serious understatement.

CDC-sponsored study also tried to hide data

Need more evidence? How about the fact that the CDC-sponsored study published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in April 2021 — which was widely used to support the U.S. recommendation for pregnant women to get injected — also obfuscated data to hide a shockingly elevated miscarriage rate.

According to this paper, the miscarriage rate within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy was 12.5%, which is only slightly above the normal average of 10%. (Looking at statistical data, the risk of miscarriage drops from an overall, average risk rate of 21.3% for the duration of the pregnancy as a whole, to just 5% between weeks 6 and 7, all the way down to 1% between weeks 14 and 20)

However, there’s a distinct problem with this calculation, as highlighted by Drs. Ira Bernstein, Sanja Jovanovic and Deann McLeod, HBSc, of Toronto. In a May 28, 2021, letter to the editor, they pointed out that:

“In table 4, the authors report a rate of spontaneous abortions <20 weeks (SA) of 12.5% (104 abortions/827 completed pregnancies). However, this rate should be based on the number of women who were at risk of an SA due to vaccine receipt and should exclude the 700 women who were vaccinated in their third-trimester (104/127 = 82%).”

In other words, when you exclude women who got the shot in their third trimester (since the third trimester is after week 20 and therefore should not be counted when determining the miscarriage rate among those injected before week 20), the miscarriage rate is 82%. (The errors in that NEJM article were also reviewed in a Science, Public Health Policy and the Law paper published in November 2021.)

Of those 104 miscarriages, 96 of them occurred before 13 weeks of gestation, which strongly suggests that getting a COVID shot during the first trimester is an absolute recipe for disaster. So, here was yet another attempt to hide the fact that more than 8 in 10 pregnancies may be terminated as a result of the jab.

As of Aug. 12, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database listed 4,941 miscarriages post-COVID-19 jab. For comparison, the fetal death reports for all other vaccines reported to VAERS in the last 30 years is 2,239.

Birth rates are suddenly plummeting worldwide

In addition to miscarriages, we’re also looking at abruptly plummeting birth rates, suggesting the COVID-19 jabs are having an adverse impact on future fertility as well.

Kory notes:

“They are large drops, and they are occurring, almost like clockwork, approximately 9 months after pregnant women around the world started to be vaccinated.”

For example, Germany recently released data showing a 10% decline in the birth rate during the first quarter of 2022.

The live birth rate graph for Sweden looks much the same, with a 14% drop:

According to Gunnar Andersson, a Swedish professor in demographics at Stockholm University:

“We have never seen anything like this before, that the bottom just falls out in just one quarter.”

Between January and April 2022, Switzerland’s birth rate was 15% lower than expected, the UK’s was down by 10% and Taiwan’s was down 23%.

In Hungary, MP Dúró Dóra has expressed concern about a 20% drop in the birth rate during January 2022, compared to January 2021.

The U.S. is also showing signs of a drop in live births. Provisional data from North Dakota show a 10% decline in February 2022, a 13% reduction in March and an 11% reduction in April, compared to the corresponding months in 2021.

In a July Counter Signal article, Mike Campbell reported that in the five countries with the highest COVID-19 jab uptake, fertility has dropped by an average of 15.2%, whereas the five countries with the lowest COVID-19 jab uptake have seen an average reduction of just 4.66%.

Below is a chart from Birth Gauge on Twitter comparing live birth data for 2021 and 2022 in a large number of countries.

Many women report menstrual irregularities post-jab

High rates of menstrual irregularities post-jab are also a warning sign that reproductive capacity may be impacted. As of Aug. 12, there were 31,443 VAERS reports of menstrual disorders.

Changes include heavier and more painful periods and changes in menses length, as well as unexpected breakthrough bleeding or spotting among women on long-acting contraception or those who are postmenopausal and haven’t had a period in years or even decades.

Health officials have tried to brush off the reports, but a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology — funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Research on Women’s Health — confirmed an association between menstrual cycle length and COVID-19 shots.

According to the authors, it’s possible that the immune response created by the mRNA shots affects the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis, which plays a well-known role in the timing of a woman’s cycle.

The authors stated:

“Our findings for individuals who received two doses in a single cycle supports this hypothesis. Given the dosing schedule of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States (21 days for Pfizer and 28 days for Moderna), an individual receiving two doses in a single cycle would have received the first dose in the early follicular phase.

“Cycle length variability results from events leading to the recruitment and maturation of the dominant follicle during the follicular phase …”

Other disturbing evidence

A Japanese biodistribution study for Pfizer’s jab also showed the COVID-19 spike protein from the shots accumulate in female ovaries and male testes, and there’s credible concern that the COVID-19 jabs will cross-react with syncytin (a retroviral envelope protein) and reproductive genes in sperm, ova and placenta in ways that may impair fertility and reproductive outcomes.

A Pfizer-BioNTech rat study revealed the injection more than doubled the incidence of preimplantation loss (i.e., the risk of infertility), and led to mouth/jaw malformations, gastroschisis (a birth defect of the abdominal wall) and abnormalities in the right-sided aortic arch and cervical vertebrae.

As noted by The Exposé:

“With this being the case, how on earth have medicine regulators around the world managed to state in their official guidance that ‘Animal studies do not indicate direct or indirect harmful effects with respect to pregnancy’? And how have they managed to state ‘It is unknown whether the Pfizer vaccine has an impact on fertility’?

“The truth of the matter is that they actively chose to cover it up. We know this thanks to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request36 made to the Australian Government Department of Health Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).”

You can read more about that in The Exposé’s July 19 article, “FOIA Reveals Pfizer & Medicine Regulators Hid Dangers of COVID Vaccination During Pregnancy After Study Found It Increases Risk of Birth Defects & Infertility.”

We’re also seeing a sudden uptick in infant mortality. The Exposé highlighted data from Scotland, showing neonatal deaths were 119% higher above the annual norm in March 2022.

COVID jab affects male fertility too

Male fertility is also under attack by these bioweapons. Israeli research published in the journal Andrology found the Pfizer COVID-19 jab temporarily but significantly impairs male fertility, dropping sperm concentration by 15.4% and total motile count by 22.1%, compared to baseline pre-jab.

Both eventually recovered, some three months after the last jab, but if you destroy a man’s sperm for three months every time he gets a COVID shot, you’re significantly reducing the probability of him fathering a child for a good part of any given year and the stats reviewed above support this.

Remember, the mRNA shots are recommended at three-month intervals for the original series, and boosters are now being recommended at varying intervals thereafter.

Amy Kelly, project director for the Daily Clout’s Pfizer document analysis team, reviews this study and other post-jab male fertility concerns (video below).

End the COVID shots now, before it’s too late to recover

In October 2021, when the FDA was voting on whether to authorize the COVID jab for children aged 5 through 11, Dr. Eric Rubin, an FDA advisory panel member, Harvard professor and editor-in-chief of the NEJM, stated:

“We’re never going to learn about how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it. That’s just the way it goes … And I do think we should vote to approve it.”

So, in this and other instances, they’ve openly admitted that anyone who takes the jab is part of an experiment. Yet at the same time, the FDA and CDC have insisted that the jabs are perfectly safe — all while in possession of data showing they’re anything but!

In conclusion, I agree with Kory, who writes:

“… wh