'Don't Talk About Nord Stream': WaPo Report Further Demolishes Official Narrative

German investigators are now expressing severe doubts about the official Nord Stream sabotage narrative that was pushed hard in the aftermath the bombshell Seymour Hersh report which pointed the finger at a joint CIA-US Navy covert operation, with help from Norway. Last month, Hersh published an article on Substack that said the CIA planted a cover story for the Nord Stream bombings that was fed to The New York Times and the German newspaper Die Zeit. Likely this was in direct reaction to Hersh's findings. A source within the US intelligence community told the famed Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, "It was a total fabrication by American intelligence that was passed along to the Germans, and aimed at discrediting your story."

The favored narrative became one that said pro-Ukraine partisans did it in a rogue op. Hersh has maintained this was by design concocted in order to shield the US and Biden administration for ordering the operation. The Die Zeit report cited German officials to assert that the pipeline sabotage bombings were carried out by six people using a yacht rented in Poland that was owned by two Ukrainians. In the days that followed, several Western media outlets seized on that narrative and published similar articles reinforcing the cover story.

But now a fresh, lengthy investigative Washington Post story published Monday is actually confirming many of Hersh's conclusions. Indeed the 'cover story' is already fast unraveling. What's more is that the WaPo article bluntly states Western officials are not at all eager to talk about the Nord Stream sabotage, suggesting a continued cover-up in progress, or in effect a limited hangout. Also very telling is that Western accusations directed at Russia have long ago quieted down. 

Below are some surprising and damning excerpts from the WaPo report - again which reveal a dramatic narrative shift once again in progress... [emphasis ours]

* * *

Doubts about the suspicious sailboat and the ability of any entity without the direct backing of a government (which has the resources and means) to be able to pull it off:

But after months of investigation, law enforcement officials now suspect that the 50-foot yacht, the Andromeda, was probably not the only vessel used in the audacious attack. They also say the boat may have been a decoy, put to sea to distract from the true perpetrators, who remain at large, according to officials with knowledge of an investigation led by Germany’s attorney general. 

...Experts noted that while it was theoretically possible to place the explosives on the pipeline by hand, even skilled divers would be challenged submerging more than 200 feet to the seabed and slowly rising to the surface to allow time for their bodies to decompress.

More on the sailboat as "decoy" - and 'evidence' which seems planted and overly obvious:

The German investigation has determined that traces of "military-grade" explosives found on a table inside the boat’s cabin match the batch of explosives used on the pipeline. Several officials doubted that skilled saboteurs would leave such glaring evidence of their guilt behind. They wonder if the explosive traces — collected months after the rented boat was returned to its owners — were meant to falsely lead investigators to the Andromeda as the vessel used in the attack.

"The question is whether the story with the sailboat is something to distract or only part of the picture," said one person with knowledge of the investigation.

Polish and Ukrainian state connections?

The German investigation has linked the yacht rental to a Polish company, which is in turn owned by a European company that’s connected to a prominent Ukrainian, fueling speculation from Berlin to Warsaw to Kyiv that a deep-pocketed partisan may have financed the operation. The identity of the Polish company and the Ukrainian individual, as well as his potential motive, remains unclear.

Based on the initial German findings, officials have been whispering about the potential involvement of the Polish or Ukrainian government in the attack.

#BREAKING German officials believe that Poland and Ukraine were behind the Nord Stream bombing: Washington Post

— Guy Elster (@guyelster) April 3, 2023

Secretive "tips" given to German investigators which were suspiciously concrete: 

As the Nord Stream mystery has turned into an international game of Clue, German investigators have scoured the Andromeda for leads. Officials first became interested in the vessel after the country’s domestic intelligence agency [Germany] received a "very concrete tip" from a Western intelligence service that the boat may have been involved in the sabotage, according to a German security official, who declined to name the country that shared the information.

Andromeda's whereabouts and past stopovers left a virtual "trail of breadcrumbs" that were a bit too obvious:

Mola Yachting rented out the boat on Sept. 6 from Hohe Düne harbor in Warnemünde, a German port town on the Baltic, near Rostock, which is about 145 miles north of Berlin. The rental location is in plain sight of a huge vacation complex, home to a five-star hotel, seven restaurants and a high-end shopping area, with views across the harbor.

Investigators said the boat then traveled in a northeasterly direction, stopping in Hafendorf Wiek, or “Wiek harbor village,” on the northernmost part of Rügen island.

...A stop in Hafendork Wiek may have offered the Andromeda’s crew a final chance to stock up on supplies before heading to the explosion site.

“Lots of things are loaded on the boats … including groceries,” Redmann said. “Some people stop to tank up on fuel.” Redmann would not confirm that the Andromeda stopped there, citing the continuing law enforcement investigation.

This blowout is hard to watch. Seymour Hersh keeps running up the score: https://t.co/cPwV8Gb2Uo

— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) April 3, 2023

Crucially, the WaPo report features a very telling subheading: 'Don’t talk about Nord Stream':

For all the intrigue around who bombed the pipeline, some Western officials are not so eager to find out.

At gatherings of European and NATO policymakers, officials have settled into a rhythm, said one senior European diplomat: "Don’t talk about Nord Stream." Leaders see little benefit from digging too deeply and finding an uncomfortable answer, the diplomat said, echoing sentiments of several peers in other countries who said they would rather not have to deal with the possibility that Ukraine or allies were involved.

Incentives not to "talk" as well as self-willed ignorance:

Since no country is yet ruled out from having carried out the attack, officials said they were loath to share suspicions that could accidentally anger a friendly government that might have had a hand in bombing Nord Stream.

In the absence of concrete clues, an awkward silence has prevailed.

"It’s like a corpse at a family gathering," the European diplomat said, reaching for a grim analogy. Everyone can see there’s a body lying there, but pretends things are normal. "It’s better not to know."

* * *

Once again, all of the above is more in line with what Hersh has reported from the beginning - and yet his detractors have remained just as fierce in their attacks and denunciations, despite his legendary track record of getting things right, from My Lai to Abu Ghraib to Syria.

Reprinted with permission from ZeroHedge.

from 'Don't Talk About Nord Stream': WaPo Report Further Demolishes Official Narrative

Politics Is Turning Us into Idiots

Political correctness in Western societies fosters polarization and a toxic culture of ignorance. Although people are rightly outraged by the cancellation of prominent figures, the most glaring consequence of political correctness is the proliferation of ignorance. When speakers are cancelled for contradicting sacrosanct opinions, this leads to an environment where people never arrive at the truth because ideas are not disputed in the public domain.

This devolution of Western culture stymies free speech and intellectual progression. While some view cancel culture as primarily an assault on freedom, its effects are infinitely more pernicious. Societies evolve by exchanging inferior ideas for superior ones, and cancel culture is disrupting the mechanism filtering out bad ideas. Due to cancel culture, people hold steadfast to false doctrines; the belief that the gender pay gap is a result of discrimination is a classic example that continues to circulate despite evidence showing that gaps are an outcome of working hours and occupational segregation.

The effect of endorsing inaccurate assumptions is that such beliefs will be employed to justify misguided policies. If people think that women on average earn less than men because of discrimination, they will lobby for policies to rectify the problem, and such policies could be expensive to implement. Entertaining ignorant beliefs will also make it difficult to improve social mobility and narrow the highly touted black-white achievement gap.

Current narratives state that blacks are underperforming in education because of racism, and some propose abolishing standardized tests as a tool to help black students. However, research shows that black students are likely to do well when teachers impose rigorous standards rather than when standards are diluted. Case after case reveals that when scrutinized, politically correct views fail to pass the accuracy test. Nonetheless, wrongheaded ideas are propagated as gospel to the detriment of intellectual progress.

People are entitled to express political opinions and promote them as accurate. However, critics are not obliged to accept folly as truth. The popularity of dubious ideas would not be a problem if proponents would desist from compelling critics to espouse these views or be expelled from polite society. Institutionalizing fallacious ideas has resulted in widespread confusion, especially since these fallacies are inconsistently applied. In polite society, it is objectionable to say that race is not a social construct, and even mainstream consensus purports that race is primarily a social category, but it must be noted that consensus is not evidence.

Yet, despite the acceptance that race is malleable, Rachel Dolezal became a pariah after she was exposed as a white woman pretending to be black. However, why should this pose a problem when race is a social construct? Culture is shared and learned, and we all have the capacity to appreciate foreign cultures. Based on the malleability of race, a white person identifying as black should not be seen as problematic. Sex is biological, so although a man can identify as a woman, he can never become a woman. Yet, activists are infuriated when white people identify as black, even though doing so is more logically plausible than a man identifying as a woman.

Some find white people identifying as black offensive because they claim that doing so provides these white people with benefits that belong to historically oppressed black people. But this is a double standard, since men who identify as women gain benefits that belong to women, who are also seen as oppressed. It is mind-boggling that woke activists can’t see the parallels between transracialism and transgenderism. Moreover, equally outrageous is that they don’t seem to recognize that trans women are depriving real women of benefits when trans women profit from gender quotas.

For years, feminists have been arguing that women have been disenfranchised. Today, many feminists, except for some radicals, advocate for the disenfranchisement of women by embracing male athletes who compete with females. Instead of empowering women, the idiocy of political correctness inspires feminists to endorse the marginalization of women. Allowing men to compete with women diminishes opportunities for female advancement, but stating the obvious will ruin one’s career.

Kathleen Stock was ruthlessly hounded by the unthinking mob for arguing that allowing men to identify as women creates dangerous spaces for women. Stock asserted that the desire to be seen as trans friendly has led companies to advocate policies that make women susceptible to violence:

Even more pressingly, if we lose a working concept of “female” . . . self-declared trans women (males) may well eventually gain unrestricted access to protected spaces originally introduced to shield females from sexual violence from males. We are already seeing the erosion of these, as companies and charities open formerly female-only spaces such as changing rooms, shared accommodation, swimming ponds, hospital wards, and prisons, to everyone out of a desire not to appear transphobic.

Moral blind spots and contradictions are baked into the psyche of political correctness. Another issue is that denying the genetics of IQ is fashionable despite evidence to the contrary. Politically correct thinkers struggle to appreciate that IQ is genetic, but they don’t have a problem accepting the heritability of other traits or diseases if they can prove that such inherited characteristics disadvantage minority groups. For example, many believe that blacks are more likely to suffer from high blood pressure because during the slave trade’s Middle Passage, Africans who retained salt had lower mortality rates. Therefore, they passed on genes conducive to salt retention, which leads to hypertension.

However, this idea was thoroughly debunked by Heidi L. Lujan and Stephen E. DiCarlo in an academic paper:

Available evidence suggests that the difference in salt-sensitivity between African-Americans and Caucasians (European-Americans) is significantly smaller than what the Slavery Hypertension Hypothesis suggests. In fact, Chrysant and colleagues were unable to find differences in the blood pressure response to salt by race, age, sex, or body weight. Thus, salt sensitivity is not a racial problem, but rather a human problem, and the generalization that blacks are salt sensitive and whites are not should be discarded.

Nevertheless, the evidence does not seem to disabuse politically correct activists of incorrect notions. Indeed, sensitive topics can be involved in political debates, but sympathizing with delusional people will create a generation of idiots and destroy civilization in the process.

Reprinted with permission from Mises.org.

from Politics Is Turning Us into Idiots

Want to Attend a University where Free Speech is Respected? Don’t Write off Public Universities.

Some individuals seeking out a free speech respecting university to attend may write off state or public schools, assuming that private schools will better fit the bill. Survey results from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), however, indicate that respect for free speech may more often be found at public colleges and universities.

FIRE surveyed over 40,000 students at 208 colleges and universities regarding matters related to free speech for its 2023 College Free Speech Rankings. Based on the answers students provided, along with the content of schools’ speech codes and how school administrations have handled campus speech controversies, the institutions of higher education were ranked and given grades ranging from Abysmal to Good.

Columbia University, the lone school rated Abysmal, is a private school. So also are the two schools rated Very Poor and 15 out of 16 of the schools rated Poor. In the next highest category of Bellow Average schools, private schools outnumbered public schools 33 to 16.

On the other end of the rankings, four of the six schools rated at the highest assigned rating of Good are public, though the private University of Chicago came in first overall. Next up, every one of the 21 schools rated Above Average is public.

The entire list of ranked colleges and universities — including ones ranked in the midrange categories of Slightly Below Average, Average, and Slightly Above Average — is composed of 87 private schools and 121 public schools.

For more details about the survey methodology and the results for individual schools, check out the rankings here.

from Peace and Prosperity http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2023/april/04/want-to-attend-a-university-where-free-speech-is-respected-don-t-write-off-public-universities/

The Trump Indictment And The Coup Against America

It didn't happen overnight and it didn't even begin with the Trump presidency, but there has been a coup in America. A coup of the elites against the American people. It's just getting more obvious these days. Also today: who are the winners in the Ukraine war? Finally: should we worry about Russian nukes in Belarus? Today on the Liberty Report:



from The Trump Indictment And The Coup Against America

Final Blow to Eviscerated Antiwar Movement

Ukraine and seven other European nations are attempting to shut down information on the internet and social media that does not conform to a fantasy narrative obscuring the truth about the war in Ukraine.

The prime ministers of eight European countries signed an open letter asking major social media companies to take more aggressive steps to halt the spread of misinformation designed “to weaken our support to Ukraine amid Russia’s war of aggression.”https://t.co/EETXwgXxvC

— The New York Times (@nytimes) March 29, 2023

The war narrative of the “collective West” is built on lies, exaggeration, propaganda, uncorroborated allegation, and fantasy yarns spun by the Zelenskyy regime.

For instance, the absurd accusation that a broken chimney pipe on a building near the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant was a Russian rocket. Or more pernicious, that the racist and nazified Azov Battalion is a cadre of freedom fighters, the same as the Taliban during the Reagan regime were freedom fighters (instead of medieval misogynists and religious fanatics).

From Reuters:

In an open letter signed by their respective prime ministers, the countries said tech platforms, such as Meta's Facebook, should take concrete steps such as rejecting payments from sanctioned individuals and altering algorithms to promote accuracy over engagement by users.

For the prime ministers of Ukraine, Moldova, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (all NATO members except Ukraine and Moldova), truthful reporting—or facts contrary to the fantasy narrative—must be squashed by algorithms.

Propaganda and lies surrounding what is happening in Ukraine—led by the obvious and refutable lie Ukraine is winning the war—are to be protected and upheld by Europe’s Digital Services Act (DSA).

Christian Borggreen, Senior Vice President and Head of the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) Europe said “proper implementation of the DSA, combined with the recently revised EU Code of Practice on Disinformation, is key to stepping up the fight against disinformation.”

The DSA gives the EU Commission the ability to financially punish platforms that wander afield of the fantasy narrative. “One of the final points added to the DSA was introduced in light of Russia’s recent military invasion of Ukraine and the internet’s role as a conduit for information warfare,” notes Gillian Vernick for Reporters Committee. Under the DSA proposals, posting contrary information would be considered a national security emergency.

The Crisis Response Protocol is a mechanism that would allow for the European Commission to consult with member states to declare a state of emergency and require content removal in such a crisis situation. This provision codifies the action the EU recently took when it ordered platforms to take down content from Kremlin-backed media organizations RT and Sputnik, flagging the content as state propaganda and disinformation. (Emphasis added.)

If implemented, the DSA will terminate discussions outside official narratives by imposing hefty fines on social media and other internet platforms. “Failure to comply with the DSA carries potentially huge fines: up to 6 percent of annual turnover,” reports Popular Science. “Alphabet, Google’s parent company, had $258 billion in annual revenue last year. Should it have committed some serious breach of the regulations, it could have been on the hook for more than $15 billion dollars.”

Obviously, to avoid such punitive action, social media corporations will step up efforts to sanitize their platforms in fear of financial setbacks or ruin. “While the DSA is targeted at big tech companies operating in Europe, it’s important to note that this will likely have knock-on effects in the US and around the world.”

As for the ability of the DSA to censor information at odds with official narratives, consider Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation of 2018. It is now used to control how websites use cookies for tracking.

“The European Union is levying increasingly large fines for breaches of its General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) laws, which might start to skew the risk calculus for some companies,” PopSci adds.

It may soon be virtually impossible to post the truth about neoliberal-engineered conflicts and attendant crimes and horrors if this EU-spawned authoritarian nightmare becomes a reality.

The DSA will apply to “a large category of online services, from simple websites to internet infrastructure services and online platforms,” according to Search Engine Journal. “All digital services that conduct business in the EU are subject to the DSA, regardless of where the business is established—even small and micro companies.”

The antiwar movement—or any political movement challenging the state—will be unable to refute lies and war propaganda on the internet and social media platforms after the DSA becomes law.

In the preface to Animal Farm, George Orwell wrote: “Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban.”

However, since the advent of the internet, “inconvenient facts” are exposed, discussed, and generally debated, much to the irritation and chagrin of the state, its intellectuals, and a corporate stenographic media telegraphing lies and propaganda.

There is a concerted effort to silence critics. This should be more than obvious with the unjust imprisonment and psychological torture of Julian Assange.

Reprinted with permission from Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics.

from Final Blow to Eviscerated Antiwar Movement

The RESTRICT Act Restricts More Than TikTok

Supporters of expanding the federal police state have found a new boogeyman to scare the people into surrendering their liberty: TikTok. TikTok is a social media platform that allows users to upload their own videos. It is used by tens of millions of Americans and is one of the most popular websites in the world.

TikTok’s popularity and the fact that is owned by a Beijing-based company — ByteDance — has led to the spread of a claim that the site is controlled by the Chinese government. Thus the claim the Chinese government is using TikTok to collect data on US citizens.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner introduced last month the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act (RESTRICT Act). The bill is being marketed as a way to protect Americans from foreign governments that use social media to spy on Americans.

The RESTRICT Act makes no mention of TikTok or ByteDance. The Chinese government is mentioned only once in the bill, when it is designated as a “foreign adversary” along with five other governments. What the bill does do is give the Secretary of Commerce power to "identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, or otherwise mitigate … any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person, or with respect to any property” that the Secretary of Commerce determines “poses an undue or unacceptable risk” in a laundry list of areas. Among those areas are "coercive or criminal activities by a foreign adversary that are designed to undermine democratic processes and institutions or steer policy and regulatory decisions in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary to the detriment of the national security of the United States." So the US could shut down an American social media company based on the Secretary of Commerce’s determination that a website, while not actually doing anything to weaken America, poses an unacceptable risk that it will?

The TikTok controversy has taken attention away from the disturbing Twitter Files, a release of communication between Twitter employees and governmental agencies. The communication shows how much government “influenced” big tech companies’ decisions regarding suppressing stories and deplatforming users. If the RESTRICT Act becomes the RESTRICT law, any site that refuses to cooperate with future efforts by the US government to suppress certain stories and individuals on social media could find itself accused of working to advance the “strategic objectives of a foreign adversary.”

Those who doubt this should consider how people who question US foreign policy are smeared as Russian agents. The RESTRICT Act’s potential victims are sites like Rumble. Rumble is a censorship-free alternative to YouTube. Rumble’s commitment to free speech is so strong that it chose to block access to its site in France instead of complying with a new French law banning Russia Today and other Russian news sources from French social media.

Like the PATRIOT Act, the RESTRICT Act plays on people’s fears to make them silent while Congress takes away more of their liberty. This bill is a blatant violation of the First Amendment that the Founders intended to protect our right to engage in political speech and share political information and opinions with others. We should stop Congress from violating our right to discuss and share ideas on TikTok and elsewhere that challenge the political class.

from The RESTRICT Act Restricts More Than TikTok

Should Amnesty Be Granted to Those Who Were A-OK with the Other Vaccines Being Mandated?

“That” article about amnesty—the one so many found infuriating—fired me up too, but or a different reason than most. The hypocrisy of the mass, indignant reaction to it was almost too much for me to bear.

A contingent has formed of the newly outraged—those who held blind faith in the “safe, necessary and effective” slogan without ever having done any research on vaccines, who are now reeling because they just learned some actual facts about one. However, most of the newly outraged have only advanced slightly in their thinking, to now believing there is one highly flawed vaccine being pushed on the public. And they’re outraged that any of those who once favored it being mandated would now seek forgiveness on the grounds of lack of information. They point to ample information available throughout the BS-demic which made it obvious that the “official” story about COVID-19, and about COVID-19 jabs, was mostly bunk.

Well—pot, kettle, black. Pre-COVID-19, many of the newly outraged supported childhood vaccine mandates or, at the very least, sat idly by without voicing any opposition to them, despite information being available of serious problems with the childhood vaccines.

The truth is, at various times nearly all of us failed to do our due diligence before forming opinions about vaccines, including this author many years ago. Almost all of us could use redemption on that front.

One taking the time to look will find that COVID-19 vaccines are not a one-off. Rather, they share most of the same problems as the vaccines that came before them. Below, is a stroll through just some of the information which demonstrates this, most of which has been there all along and overlooked by the newly outraged.

1. The safety testing of the childhood vaccines has also been reckless.

The recent addition of COVID-19 vaccines to the CDC’s childhood schedule increased the schedule from 54 injections (72 antigens) to 72 injections (90 antigens). It’s pure mythology that the vaccines on the schedule prior to this recent addition underwent rigorous safety testing.

In fact, in one regard, the childhood vaccines were tested even less rigorously than COVID-19 vaccines because the latter were tested against true placebo control groups. Of course, COVID-19 vaccines were only tested in this manner because the vaccine manufacturers were made to do so by the FDA. This occurred on the heels of Del Bigtree’s Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) filing a petition with the FDA in June of 2020 demanding true placebo testing of COVID-19 vaccines.

ICAN knew to demand this because it had been studying up on the childhood vaccines. Most of them never underwent testing using a control group administered a non-inert substance. Even worse, other vaccines were sometimes used as the substance administered to the control group. A fifth grader could recognize this for the junk science it is. This is tantamount to assessing the safety of a diet of Sour Cream and Onion chips by using a control group fed a diet of BBQ chips.

ICAN publicly posted its December 31, 2018 letter to HHS which contains extensive discussion of the use of non-inert placebos in clinical trials for vaccines used in children, along with tables identifying for each vaccine the non-inert substances given to controls groups. As the letter discusses, only one out of the approximately 30 vaccine brands then routinely injected into US children was licensed based on a clinical trial which had a true placebo control group. This discussion is set forth on pages 3 through 17 of the letter.

For example, a clinical trial conducted for Merck’s Gardasil 9 vaccine used the original Gardasil vaccine as the “placebo” in the control group, and both vaccines contain an aluminum adjuvant.

Aluminum is increasingly being recognized as a potentially dangerous vaccine ingredient. Research indicates that it plays a role in causing Alzheimer’s disease, asthma, autism, and other conditions. A significant amount of aluminum is delivered to children via vaccines. In addition to HPV vaccines, these vaccines on the CDC’s childhood schedule contain aluminum: Hep B vaccine, DTaP vaccine, Hib vaccine, Pneumococcal vaccine, Hep A vaccine, DTaP/inactivated polio/Hep B vaccine, DTaP/inactivated polio/Hib vaccine, Meningococcal B vaccine, and Tdap vaccine.

Dr. Christopher Exley is a world-renowned expert on aluminum and its effects. His research found high aluminum content in the brain tissues of those with autism and, to a lesser extent, those with Alzheimer’s. These findings and their implications for aluminum-containing vaccines have earned him exile to the land of the censored and smeared. But, like many of those relegated to that land, he refuses to shut up. His Substack newsletter is an excellent resource for those wanting to learn about the health effects of aluminum.

Lack of true placebo testing is just one of the deficiencies in the safety testing of the childhood vaccines. Contrary to popular belief, most of them did not undergo lengthy periods of pre-approval testing for adverse reactions. ICAN’s December 31, 2018 letter contains in-depth discussion of the shockingly short periods of such testing. This discussion is set forth on pages 17 through 23 of the letter. Parents unwilling to read all six of these pages may want to, at the very least, glance at the table on pages 19 and 20. It lists eleven of the childhood vaccines and their corresponding diseases, along with the short “duration of safety review after injection” for each. The table is a stunner, to put it mildly.

For example, of the two hepatitis B vaccines licensed by the FDA for injection into newborns, Merck’s was licensed based upon clinical trials which reviewed for adverse reactions for only five days after injection and GlaxoSmithKline’s was licensed based upon such trials which reviewed for them for only four days after it. As other examples, Merck’s Hib vaccine and Sanofi Pasteur’s polio vaccine were each licensed based upon clinical trials which reviewed for adverse reactions for only three days post injection.

A common complaint by the newly outraged is that there’s been inadequate post-vaccination monitoring in the populace for adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines. Because of COVID-19 vaccines, the newly outraged have finally learned of the existence of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting system (VAERS). VAERS is operated by HHS. HHS funded a 2011 study by Harvard Medical School which tracked reporting to VAERS over a three-year period at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care and concluded that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” Despite receiving this study result, HHS did nothing to cure VAERS’ ineffectiveness and let it continue humming along, failing to capture most vaccine adverse reactions.

It should be dawning on the newly outraged that the same lousy system that hasn’t captured most COVID-19 vaccine adverse reactions also hasn’t captured most adverse reactions to the childhood vaccines. The “one in a million” myth was never anchored to any facts, or any reliable system for recording adverse reactions. It was made-up—pulled out of a Pharma shill’s derrière and repeated ad nauseum throughout the decades.

It’s impossible to comprehensively cover the inadequacies in the safety testing of the childhood vaccines in one article. For the sake of brevity and because I’ve provided a link to ICAN’s December 31, 2018 letter which covers more of that ground, I’ll move on.

2. There’s been no showing of necessity for the childhood vaccines.

The newly outraged are irate that COVID-19 vaccines were added to the childhood schedule despite an obvious lack of necessity for children’s health. According to the schedule, COVID-19 vaccines are to be given to babies beginning at 6 months of age. What could be worse than giving a child a vaccine it doesn’t need with potential adverse effects at 6 months of age? Giving a child such a vaccine at birth is worse, like is done with the hepatitis B vaccine.

The CDC recommends a hepatitis B vaccine at birth, 1-2 months of age, and 6-18 months of age and nearly all states mandate the vaccine for school attendance. These are clearly unnecessary vaccinations.

Hepatitis B is not spread through casual contact. It’s spread when blood, semen, or other body fluids from a person infected with the virus enters the body of someone who is not infected and this can happen through sexual contact; sharing needles, syringes, or other drug-injection equipment; or from mother to baby at birth. Therefore, newborns are generally at no risk of getting hepatitis B unless their mothers harbor the virus, which can be determined through routine prenatal blood testing. Further, hepatitis B vaccines given to newborns are expected to wear off before the age of any likely exposure to the hepatitis B virus.

It’s also impossible to comprehensively cover the issue of the lack of necessity for the childhood vaccines in one article There’s far too much to review. This lack of necessity discussion began with the first vaccine children receive according to the CDC’s schedule, but one could throw a dart at the schedule and land on a vaccine with plenty of facts to work with to show lack of necessity. Below are examples of articles and videos touching upon the lack of necessity issue with respect to a few more of the childhood vaccines: chickenpox, DTaP and HPV.

•An October 4, 2019 article posted by Children’s Health Defense entitled “Chickenpox: The Dirty Dozen Facts You Should Know Before Vaccinating” contains information demonstrating the lack of necessity for children to be vaccinated for chickenpox, including discussion of the low risk posed by the disease. The article also discusses problems associated with mass vaccination for chickenpox, such as an increase in the rate of shingles infections. Nearly all states mandate the chickenpox vaccine for schoolchildren.

•A February 2, 2023 segment of The HighWire (HW) (Episode 305) discusses research which indicates that being vaccinated for pertussis (with the DTaP vaccine) makes children more susceptible to pertussis throughout their lifetimes, not less, which certainly refutes any argument that it’s necessary for children’s health to be vaccinated for the disease. The segment also discusses research which indicates that being vaccinated for pertussis unknowingly makes one an infected, asymptomatic carrier of the disease. All states mandate the DTaP vaccine upon schoolchildren.

•A March 9, 2023 interview of attorney Michael Baum by Del Bigtree (HW Episode 310) discusses information which clearly establishes a lack of necessity for children to receive the HPV vaccine (i.e., clinical trials never tested for whether vaccination actually prevents cervical cancer, there’s been no showing that cervical cancer rates have dropped as a result of HPV vaccination, most HPV infections clear from the body naturally, cervical cancer is largely treatable if caught early and is effectively detected through yearly pap smears, the vaccines only create antibodies to a small number of the HPV strains that exist, and use of the vaccines create a strain replacement issue). As an aside, the proposed California legislation (CA AB 659) discussed in HW Episode 310 has been amended since the episode, to shift the proposed HPV vaccine mandate from eighth graders to college students. The amendments to the bill are discussed in HW Episode 312. Four jurisdictions already mandate the HPV vaccine for schoolchildren.

Lack of necessity is not just a problem with respect to the individual vaccines on the childhood schedule, but also with respect to the entire schedule. The CDC has never conducted a study comparing the health of children vaccinated in accordance with the schedule with that of unvaccinated children. Unfortunately for the CDC, others have done so. Below are a couple of examples of what’s been found.

•A study published in April of 2017 comparing 650 vaccinated and unvaccinated homeschooled children in the US found that, compared to completely-unvaccinated children, fully-vaccinated children had increased risks for allergies, ADHD, autism, eczema, learning disabilities, and neuro-developmental delay. Additionally, fully vaccinated-pre-term infants were found to have an increased risk for neurodevelopmental disorders compared to completely unvaccinated preterm infants.

•A study published in November of 2020 concerning a retrospective analysis of the health records of approximately 3,300 children covering a period of about ten years compared the health outcomes of the children (unvaccinated v. vaccinated to varying extents) and found that the unvaccinated children were significantly healthier. The vaccinated children were diagnosed with a broad range of conditions at much higher rates than their unvaccinated counterparts and saw a doctor markedly more often than the unvaccinated children. Jeremy R. Hammond has discussed the study in depth in his June 14, 2021 article posted on CHD and in his book, The War on Informed Consent: The Persecution of Dr. Paul Thomas by the Oregon Medical Board. Pay no mind to the fact that the study was retracted after publication. A follow up study was conducted which demonstrated that the purported basis for the retraction was unfounded. Even the newly outraged have come to understand that retraction is being used as a tool to unfairly delegitimize those putting forth findings that conflict with Big Pharma’s narrative.

In 2023, evidence which refutes the notion that vaccination makes children healthier keeps rolling in. A 2023 study using 2019 data found a positive statistical correlation between infant mortality rates and the number of vaccine doses received by the infants. The study confirmed findings made by the same researchers about a decade ago using 2009 data.

Conclusion

Let’s circle back to the amnesty issue. There’s a meme circulating these days stating, “They think you’re stupid.” Anyone who believes that governments and Big Pharma just started lying about vaccines when COVID-19 came along is, at the very least, woefully naïve. At this point, after the 24/7, multi-year, orchestrated lying about COVID-19 vaccines, it’s inexcusable to keep getting one’s child injected with products one hasn’t thoroughly researched, meaning with resources that aren’t Big Pharma funded or influenced. It’s even more inexcusable to support the mandating of any of the childhood vaccines, or to meekly accept such mandates through silence. No amnesty is warranted for doing so moving forward.

from Should Amnesty Be Granted to Those Who Were A-OK with the Other Vaccines Being Mandated?