Truth Talks are apart of the TruthGroup which also owns the fast growing censor social media platform, Truthbook.social

Categories
Lifestyle|Steve Kirsch

100 Questions They Don’t Want To Answer

100 Questions They Don’t Want To Answer

By Steve Kirsch

The most troubling part of the pandemic to me is the lack of transparency and accountability. The authorities love to create mandates we must follow, but they refuse to be held accountable.

Here’s a list of questions that you can ask your doctor, local, state, and federal lawmakers and health authorities. I haven’t had any luck getting any of these questions answered on camera so I can share the answers with you. Perhaps you will have better luck.

There aren’t 100 questions here yet, but there will be when I’m done with this. Check back in a few days for the update.

IMPORTANT: Hyperlinks will be added later to all the references, but most things are available in Incriminating Evidence.

General questions

  1. Incriminating Evidence is a collection of counter-narrative evidence. Can we go through that one piece at a time and can you explain how these are all wrong? Or conversely, perhaps you can find just one document that you can show is wrong in that article?
  2. We are characterized as spreading misinformation, but mostly we are simply asking questions (like we are doing here) that nobody wants to answer. Since when is asking questions classified as misinformation?

Censorship

  1. President Biden has a Disinformation Dozen list. Why not debate these people instead of censoring them? Is it right for the leader of the free world to proudly proclaim a censorship list?
  2. Facebook has removed vaccine victim support groups with over 200,000 users. Why was this done? Why didn’t the medical community say a word in protest? How is removing a support group for vaccine injured a benefit to society?
  3. Will you sponsor a law allowing people who have had life-saving content removed from large social media platforms to sue for statutory damages?
  4. Why hasn’t the mainstream medical community come out to denounce censorship attempts by a rogue set of 270 “doctors”?

Accountability

  1. Would you you be willing to be interviewed about the Incriminating Evidence article?
  2. Why won’t any member of the FDA/CDC outside committees debate me for $1M just to show up at the debate table?
  3. Why are people trying to censor the doctors instead of debating them? Why weren’t any of the 270 signers of the letter asking Spotify to censor Joe Rogan willing to debate Malone on the issues they objected to?
  4. Why won’t any local, state, or federal lawmaker or official agree to answer any of these questions in a live recorded video interview?
  5. How can the CDC not find a single safety signal with these vaccines other than minor symptoms? It was the DoD who found the myocarditis signal.
  6. Will the CDC ever admit there are thousands of adverse events and deaths?
  7. Why did Steven A. Anderson of the FDA (who is the top person for safety monitoring for these vaccines) duck all my phone calls and emails when I asked if he wanted to see the troubling safety signals in VAERS?
  8. Why did Janet Woodcock not follow through on her agreement to investigate the Maddie de Garay case?
  9. Everyone knows there was fraud in the Phase 3 trial for 12-15 year olds. How come nobody is saying anything?
  10. Jessica Rose’s paper on myocarditis was unethically pulled by Elsevier for no stated reason. Why is the academic community not saying anything?
  11. Social media companies have removed the accounts of people who tried to expose the truth. This cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Will the social media companies be held accountable?
  12. Is there a single member of congress who will object to Biden’s censorship list?
  13. If the State Board removes the license of a physician for “misinformation” and said “misinformation” later turns out to be true, should the affected physician be allowed to sue the State Board for treble damages and attorney fees? If not, why not?
  14. If Governor Newsom didn’t get GBS after his booster, then why doesn’t he just do a public blanket authorization to all his healthcare providers to release information on his GBS post-booster? This will prove he’s telling the truth with no risk of disclosure whatsoever (if he’s telling the truth).

Pandemic response

  1. Why didn’t we just mandate everyone get the Fareed-Tyson protocol if they got COVID? This would have resulted in very few deaths. Why did the NIH refuse to investigate this?
  2. Everyone knows about the Fareed-Tyson protocol today. Why not simply mandate its use now and drop the other restrictions?
  3. When we found out the vaccines did nothing to prevent infection, the societal benefit ended at that point. Why didn’t we drop the mandates then?

Vaccine efficacy

  1. There are over 9 studies that show the vaccines make it MORE likely (not less likely) you’ll be infected from COVID. Did they make a mistake in all 9 studies?

Vaccine safety

  1. Why do 13 different methods show that over 150,000 Americans have been killed by the vaccines? Are they all wrong? Where is the correct analysis we should rely on?
  2. How come there were no primate studies showing the amount, distribution, and duration of the spike protein after vaccination?
  3. How long do d-dimer and troponin stay elevated for? In what percentage of patients?
  4. How long until the spike protein is undetectable in people’s blood after vaccination?
  5. Is there a cardiologist in the entire country who has seen rates of myocarditis fall after the vaccines rolled out? How come you can’t find one?
  6. The FDA claims VAERS is high because people are overreporting. This is a handwaving argument. Where is the evidence of this? Every physician I know says the reporting rates are high because the vaccine is more deadly than all other vaccines.
  7. Why did the Pfizer trial report 24% more deaths in the vaccine arm than the placebo arm? Isn’t it supposed to be the other way around? Why weren’t there autopsies in any of those deaths? How can Pfizer be certain those deaths weren’t caused by the vaccines?
  8. My neurologist has 20,000 patients and 2,000 vaccine injured. She’s been in practice for 11 years w/o a vaccine injury. This vaccine is over 20,000X worse than other vaccines. If the vaccine is so safe, how do you explain a 10% injury rate?
  9. There are now over 1M adverse events reported in the VAERS system. Using CDC’s methodology, we know VAERS is ~40x underreported. That’s 40M adverse events and > 5,000 conditions that are significantly elevated. How can the CDC not spot a single safety signal (other than myocarditis)?
  10. There are over 5,000 significantly elevated adverse events in the VAERS system. How come we aren’t giving people a list of these? If they weren’t caused by the vaccines, then what were they caused by?
  11. How can the CDC not find any deaths caused by the vaccines, yet top pathologists like Ryan Cole and Sucharit Bhakdi claim that over 90% of the deaths within 60 days post-vaccination were likely caused by the vaccine. One of the world’s top pathologists, Peter Schirmacher, also found results consistent with their findings. Why should we trust the CDC? Did these pathologists make a mistake?
  12. Why is the CDC “still investigating” all the cases where the autopsy showed the person was killed by the vaccine?
  13. Why isn’t the CDC requiring that autopsies be done by pathologists trained in spotting COVID vaccine injury if the death was within 30 days of the vaccine?
  14. If the risk of myocarditis is only “slightly elevated” due to the vaccine, then how do you explain this chart from Jessica Rose’s paper?
  15. Ryan Cole has been a pathologist for 26 years. He’s seen nearly 500,000 patients and done 550 autopsies. He recently found a saphenous vein in a patient’s leg 4 feet long that was SOLID with clots. He’s never seen anything like that in his entire career. Others in the patient were 6 to 24 inches long. This was in a patient who died just 3 days after a booster shot. If it wasn’t the vaccine that caused this, then what did?
  16. If myocarditis after the vax is so rare, then how do we explain at least 4 myocarditis cases in a small private school (Monte Vista Christian School) among fewer than 400 boys?
  17. Why are there so few autopsies?
  18. Shouldn’t a 3 year old dying from cardiac arrest just one day after being vaccinated set off alarm bells? Does anyone care?
  19. If the vaccines are so safe and effective then why do surveys of firemen and airline pilots show that 80% would choose not to be vaccinated if they weren’t forced to?
  20. If Maddie de Garay’s case was not caused by the vaccine, then how could an identical case happen in Australia with identical symptoms, right after the second dose of the vaccine, just like in Maddie’s case?

Early treatment

  1. Why is every single early treatment drug or supplement listed at c19early.com as being effective being ignored by the NIH?
  2. Fluvoxamine was shown to reduce death from COVID by 12X, but only if you took it. Why did the NIH give it a neutral rating?
  3. Ivermectin has been shown in multiple peer reviewed meta-analysis and systematic reviews to work against COVID. That’s the highest level of evidence based medicine. How can the NIH not recognize that? How can major pharmacy chains deny prescriptions? What actions by the Medical Boards have been taken to revoke the license of all of the rogue pharmacists who have denied these prescriptions and put patient’s lives in jeopardy?
  4. Why does it take a court order to give ivermectin in the hospital? Why aren’t doctors in hospitals allowed to use their own professional judgment?
  5. Why hasn’t the public been educated about the role of aspirin, Vitamin D, and NAC in treating COVID?
  6. Can we have an open debate with the FDA about the safety and efficacy of Paxlovid and Molnupiravir vs. proven early treatment protocols?
  7. Why has the NIH taken a blind eye to every early treatment protocol?
  8. Myfreedoctor has treated over 75,000 COVID patients with only 4 deaths. If early treatments don’t work, how do you explain these results?

Biased news coverage

  1. People who die within 60 days of the vax are 90% likely to have died from the vaccine. How come we never talk about when they were vaccinated in their obituary? Why are there so few autopsies in these cases?
  2. Why does Jake Tapper use ad hominem attacks against Robert F. Kennedy, but will not debate him? Isn’t this unfair?
  3. How come Robert Malone and Peter McCullough never appears on CNN or in the NY Times or Washington Post?
  4. Why is the news coverage of vaccine safety and efficacy so one-sided? Isn’t the news media supposed to report both sides and let the viewers decide?

Corruption

  1. Why do John Su and the CDC continue to stonewall all requests for the VAERS URF calculation paper for these vaccines using the methodology Su and other CDC authors wrote about a year earlier?
  2. Why did FEMA make a cash offer to Ernest Ramirez to declare his son’s death a COVID death? Did they have evidence the coroner got it wrong?
  3. Maddie de Garay, who was 12 at the time, was injured in the Pfizer phase 3 trial. She’s paralyzed. She’s now becoming a quadriplegic. Why didn’t the FDA, CDC, or NIH investigate? That’s clinical trial fraud. Why aren’t we telling people that based on the clinical trial, there is a 1 chance in 1,000 your child could be paralyzed too?
  4. Why aren’t any coroners trained on how to spot death from COVID vaccines?
  5. Why aren’t all deaths within 4 month of vax being autopsied to see if the vaccine caused the death? Even if we just did this for 1 day?
  6. Why is there no stopping condition? How many kids have to die from cardiac arrest before we stop the vaccines?
  7. Why refusing to fill valid ivermectin prescriptions protecting health? What studies show that the risks outweigh the benefits? Don’t you have to cherry pick studies to show that?
  8. Why was every single early treatment protocol using existing drugs/supplements suppressed by the NIH?
  9. Why is ivermectin so expensive? One vaccine injured patient must pay $220 for 20 pills. Why is this not covered by insurance?
  10. Will Tony Fauci submit to a blood test so we can see if he really got the vaccine? If not, why not? How about all members of Congress?

Intimidation tactics

  1. If doctors are free to practice medicine, then why is only one doctor in California willing to write medical exemptions from the vaccine?

Mandates

  1. Is it ethical to mandate a vaccine that is more likely to kill people than to save them?
  2. Is it ethical to mandate a vaccine where most all of the vaccine injured cannot be cured?
  3. Is it ethical to ever mandate any vaccine ever?
  4. If the mandates are to protect society, why isn’t there a risk benefit analysis anywhere?
  5. Why it is ok to mandate vaccination for kids when the data shows we kill over 100 kids to save 1. Was there an error in Dr. Toby Rogers’ analysis?
  6. If you want to mandate something, why not mandate that everyone with COVID get early treatment ?
  7. Why won’t anyone with a mandate accept liability?
  8. Why must I be vaccinated to watch my daughter graduate from college? Why is testing not sufficient?
  9. If you die from the vaccine, many insurance companies won’t pay for it since you opted for an experimental treatment forced by your employer. Is it right for the burden to be on you?
  10. If the vaccines are as safe and effective as claimed, why do we need mandates?

Masks

  1. Why are masks mandated when every randomized controlled trial shows that cloth and surgical masks are completely useless against COVID. The CDC knows this. Relying on studies that support the narrative while ignoring higher quality studies that don’t is evidence cherry picking. How is it that nobody in the mainstream medical community calls the CDC out on behavior like this?
  2. Can anyone show a study showing the risk reduction from an N95 mask varies over time within a room? It goes to zero after a short amount of time. What is it?
  3. Why are we not educating the public about P100 respirators? Don’t we want to protect people? P100 respirators such as the 3M 7503 with a 3M 2901 filter set are more than 150 times more effective than an N95 mask. The N95 mask is practically useless against COVID (see Incriminating Evidence mask section for details).
  4. Since the benefits of cloth and surgical are zero and the risks are non-zero, can we please see the risk-benefit analysis that the CDC prepared to justify the mask recommendations?
  5. If masking indoors is such a good idea then why were there 7 hours of public testimony, all of it against the mandate, in Oregon?

Social distancing

  1. Where is the study showing that 6 feet results in a benefit? How does that benefit decay over time?

Testing

  1. Since there is no evidence of asymptomatic spread, why are we testing people who are asymptomatic?
  2. Since there is no evidence the naturally recovered can infect others, why are we testing these people and requiring them to be vaccinated?

Liability

  1. If the vaccines are safe and effective, then why do the manufacturers need liability protection?
  2. If the vaccines are so safe, why aren’t any of the organizations that mandate vaccines accepting liability?

 

Note: This is just an initial list. I’ll add more over time, but this should be a good warmup set of questions.

Categories
Lifestyle|Steve Kirsch

An Open Debate Challenge to the 270 “Experts” Who Signed the Spotify Letter Challenging Robert Malone

An Open Debate Challenge to the 270 “Experts” Who Signed the Spotify Letter Challenging Robert Malone

By Steve Kirsch

The challenge

To the 270 scientists, medical professionals, professors, and science communicators who signed the letter to Spotify complaining about medical misinformation:

We challenge every Professor and medical doctor (MD) who signed the Open Letter to a live recorded Zoom debate at 10am PST on January 28, 2021 for 3 hours. The purpose is to identify and expose any misinformation on the Joe Rogan podcast cited in the letter (JRE #1757).

We are old fashioned. We think scientific agreements should be settled by open discussion between scientists and not assigned to unknown, unqualified, and unnamed censors who hide deep inside the bowels of high tech companies.

I hope you agree with that and will accept our offer to an old fashioned scientific debate.

How to accept if you are a Professor or MD who signed the Spotify letter

The first 12 Spotify letter signatories who are either a Professor or MD to accept the challenge will be the debaters on your side of the table. We will also accept substitutions if you are willing to give up your slot to a signer who later finds out about the debate offer.

If you are a Professor or MD who signed the letter, to respond to the challenge, please email:

stevekirsch-request@protonmail.com

with your name, title, and phone number so that we can verify you.

You should also accept our challenge by posting to your Twitter account as well (include #SpotifyDebateChallenge in your tweet), and you must PROVIDE a link your Twitter acceptance in your email as this is verification that it is really you who is accepting our challenge. You can also note your acceptance in the comments below.

IMPORTANT: Please put #SpotifyDebateChallenge in the subject line and include the hyperlink to your Tweet publicly accepting the challenge.

Note: If you are a qualified academic scientist in infectious disease, epidemiology, or other relevant field, we invite you to apply as well, but we will give priority to the 12 slots to professors and MDs. We want to make sure your side has the highest quality representation.

Our team

We will supply 12 debaters from our team which includes people such as Robert Malone, Robert F. Kennedy, and others. We will also invite Joe Rogan to attend if he is available.

Debate topics will be limited to statements made on the podcast

The topics will be limited to the topics you raised in your letter, i.e., we will examine the truth of any statement made on the Joe Rogan podcast by Robert Malone that you cited in your letter. Otherwise, we will never finish.

Debate rules

The rules of the debate are simple, fair, and 100% symmetrical. No side has an advantage.

The public is invited to watch it live, we’ll post the video on the VSRF website afterwards for everyone to see, and we’ll also livestream it.

Debate links

We will post the public debate registration links to this article by midnight PST on Jan 20. So come back here for an update on Jan 21 to register.

If you are one of the debaters, you will be sent a private participant link at least 24 hours prior to the debate via your email.

Rain or shine

We will be there as long as there is at least one qualifying respondent who signed the letter. Otherwise, it won’t be much of a debate.

Categories
Lifestyle|Steve Kirsch

“Peer Reviewed:” Science Losing Credibility As Large Amounts Of Research Shown To Be False

Science today, in all fields, is plagued by corruption. Yet, more often than not, attempts to create awareness about scientific fraud — an issue that few journalists have been willing to address — are met with the response, “Well, is it peer-reviewed?”

Although good science should always be reviewed, using this label as a form of credibility can be dangerous, causing people to dismiss new information and research instantaneously if it doesn’t have  it, particularly when that information counters long-held beliefs ingrained into human consciousness via mass marketing, education, and more.

Unfortunately, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that we are being lied to about the products and medicines we use on a daily basis.

If you’re one who commonly points to the “peer-reviewed” label, then you should know that there are many researchers and insiders who have been creating awareness about the problem with this label for years.

Who Says So? And From What Fields?

  • Climate Science

Many people have spoken up against the corporatization and politicization of science. For example, Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish climatologist and former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, has voiced his concern that some scientists are, according to an interview given to the Daily Mail, “mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist.” He claims that there are multiple indicators for how “science is gradually being influenced by political views.” (source)

Professor Joanna D. Haigh, a British physicist, professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London, co-director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, and former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, has also spoken up about the politicization of climate science. (source)

The Australian prime minister’s chief business advisor has done the same, and so have other politicians, like Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. You can read more about that story here.

Unfortunately, the mainstream vilifies such people, and to great effect.

Below is an excellent snippet of a lecture given by Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s top experts in the field and lead author of “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” Chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change. He knows that all climate science we receive is IPCC United Nations science. One of the scientists mentioned on the senator’s list, in this video, he talks about the politics of climate science and the manipulation of data — something that plagues all fields of science today.

  • Medical Science/Health Science/Food

In the case of medicine, a lot of information has emerged showing just how much corruption really goes on. The Editors-in-Chiefs of several major medical journals have been quite blunt, with perhaps one of the best examples coming from Dr. Richard Horton, the current Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet, who says, “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” (source)

Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), also considered one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, alongside The Lancet, has said that “it is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”  (source)

John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine, published an article titled “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” which subsequently became the most widely accessed article in the history of the Public Library of Science (PLoS). (source)

Here is another great quote:

“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”

– Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard professor of medicine and former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Medical Journal  (source)

As you can see, this has been a problem for quite some time.

A Couple of Examples:

  • GMOs

One of the best examples of political influence over scientific publication comes from an episode involving Genetically Modified Maize. Monsanto published a study a few years ago which purported to demonstrate the effects of GMO maize on rats over a 90 day period. They reported no ill effects on the rodents from this diet. Given the fact that there are no long term studies examining the health risks associated with GMOs, independent researchers then decided to conduct the same study, with one difference: Their study lasted over a year rather than a mere three months. Researchers found instances of severe liver and kidney damage, as well as hormonal disturbances, alongside the development of large tumours and mortality among the treatment groups. The study was published in November of 2012, in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology, and then instantly retracted. After hundreds of scientists condemned the retraction, the U.S. did not publish it. The study was then re-published in multiple peer-reviewed scientific journals (in Europe last year [2014]), like Environmental Sciences Europe. This is why it shouldn’t be a surprise that so many countries in Europe have  banned the growing of genetically modified crops. Many also have bans and/or severe restrictions on importing GM products, citing health and environmental concerns.

This fact was also made clear by WikiLeaks documents:

Resistance to the advent of genetically modified foods has been pronounced across Europe. The continent features some of the strictest regulations governing the use and cultivation of GMO products, and public skepticism about biotech goods is quite high – a fact not lost on American diplomats. In a lengthy report dating from late 2007 , a cable issued by the State Department outlined its “Biotechnology Outreach Strategy, ‘which, among other things, recognized the European Union’s ‘negative views on biology’ and committed as a national priority to limiting them (O7STATE160639).

Initial attention paid to the State Department’s part in pushing industrial manufactures on its allies obscured the even bigger role it played in assuring a place for genetically modified agricultural products (GMOs) in a region that largely wanted nothing to do with them. The American campaign promoting biotech products was a worldwide effort. In all, some 1,000 documents from the Cablegate cache address this effort, a significant number of which originate in Europe. U.S. diplomats on the continent gave considerable attention to insuring the interests of American biotech firms in Europe – Whether through “education” programs, government lobbying, or outright coercion – as well as stripping down European Union regulations designed to act as a bugger against them. Available cables published by WikiLeaks suggest that the United States invests considerable time, effort, and expense in its operations on behalf of the American biotech firms.

Read more about it from The WikiLeaks Files: The World According To U.S. Empire.

In 1996, Steven M. Druker, being a public interest attorney and the Executive Director of the Alliance For Bio-Integrity, initiated a lawsuit in 1998 that forced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to divulge its files on genetically engineered foods.

He’s recently published a book on the lawsuit that provides details of his experience. He has also released the documents on his website, showing the significant hazards of genetically engineering foods and the flaws in the FDA’s policy.

It’s called Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public.

  • Pharmaceutical Drugs

There are a number of examples to choose from here, but antidepressants make the top of the list. Irving Kirsch, a lecturer in medicine at Harvard Medical School, published a study pointing out how “analyses of the published data and the unpublished data that were hidden by drug companies reveals that most (if not all) of the benefits are due to the placebo effect.” (source)

Another study published in the British Medical Journal by researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen showed that pharmaceutical companies were not disclosing all information regarding the results of their drug trials. Researchers looked at documents from 70 different double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) and found that the full extent of serious harm in clinical study reports went unreported.

Tamang Sharma, a PhD student at Cochrane and lead author of the study, said: “We found that a lot of the appendices were often only available upon request to the authorities, and the authorities had never requested them. I’m actually kind of scared about how bad the actual situation would be if we had the complete data.” (source)

Another co-author of the study, Dr. Peter Gotzsche, who co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration (the world’s foremost body in assessing medical evidence), found in a separate analysis that 100,000 people in the United States die each year from the side effects of correctly used prescription drugs, noting that “it’s remarkable that nobody raises an eyebrow when we kill so many of our own citizens with drugs.” He has published many papers arguing that our use of antidepressants is causing more harm than good, and taking into consideration the recent leaks regarding these drugs, it seems he is correct.

Below is a brief video of him elaborating on this problem:

  • Vaccines

Vaccines are getting more attention now than ever before. In fact, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Chairman of the World Mercury Project (WMP), recently announced a $100,000 challenge aimed at putting an end to the inclusion of mercury, a neurotoxin that is 100 times more poisonous than lead, in vaccines administered in the U.S and globally.

It’s offered to anybody, including journalists and scientists, who can provide a study showing that it is safe to inject mercury into babies. This will be difficult, as hundreds of studies (that were also present at the press conference in print form) show it is absolutely unsafe, and can significantly increase the risk of developing neurodegenerative disorders.

You can read more about this here.

Multiple cases of vaccine fraud have been uncovered, but this is something you might not know given the fact that the mainstream media completely ignores these facts, and vaccines are heavily marketed.

For example, Lucija Tomljenovic, who has a PhD in biochemistry and is a senior postdoctoral fellow in UBC’s Faculty of Medicine, as well as a medical investigator, uncovered documents that reveal vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. (source)

But perhaps one of the biggest revelations in medical history, also unfortunately ignored by mainstream media, came only a couple of years ago and is still making noise, as it should.

Dr. William Thompson, a longtime senior CDC scientist, published some of the most commonly cited pro-vaccine studies, which showed that there was absolutely no link between the MMR vaccine and autism (Thompson, et al. 2007, Price, et al. 2010Destefano, et al. 2004). However, Dr. Thompson recently admitted that it was the lowest point” in his career when he “went along with that paper.” He went on to say that he and the other authors “didn’t report significant findings” and that he is completely ashamed” of what he did. He was complicit and went along with this,” and regrets that he has been a part of the problem.” (source)(source)(source)

A  study with revised information and no data omitted was published by Dr. Brian Hooker (a contact of Dr. Thompson) in the peer reviewed journal Translational Neurodegeneration, and it found a 340% increased risk of autism in African American boys receiving the Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. The study has since been retracted, around the same time this controversy arose.

You can read the full study here, although, unsurprisingly, it has since been retracted.

Thompson’s attorneys, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Bryan Smith of Morgan & Morgan, also released a statement from Dr. Thompson, which mentioned Hooker: I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding studies  the CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes including autism spectrum disorders. I share his belief that CDC decision-making and analyses should be transparent.” (source)

he had to invoke whistleblower protection and turned extensive agency files over to Congress. He said that, for the past decade, his superiors have pressured him and his fellow scientists to lie and manipulate data to conceal a causal link between vaccines and brain injuries, including autism.

Final Thoughts

As you can see, scientific fraud is a big problem across the board, and this article has only provided a few examples. The problem is not just with GMOs and vaccines — it affects cosmetics, food, cleaning supplies, and so much more. How have so many products, which cause so much harm, been approved by the agencies that are tasked to protect us?

There are so many books on this topic, but they don’t get the attention they deserve, since the major mainstream media shareholders are identical to those of the entire health industry. Why would they bash their own products on their own national television networks?

The power of corporate America has taken over almost every aspect of our lives. If you’re wondering what we can do about it, well, I believe the first step is awareness. There is still a plethora of information that the general public is completely unaware of, but if we backtrack to a decade ago, information that used to be considered a conspiracy is now simply fact. A great example is the corporate takeover of science, as discussed in this article, but another one could be the Snowden Leaks on mass surveillance, or 9/11. Studies are now being published by physicists and engineers regarding that event.

Awareness makes it harder for the elite to manipulate us. Once we become aware of something, we can stop it. For example, look at Genetically Modified Foods and the pesticides that go with them. As soon as the masses became aware of their dangers, they began to change their shopping habits. Now, most countries around the world have completely banned these foods.

It’s difficult to accept that there are unseen powers, motivated by their own greed and lust for power, that are doing us harm disguised as good. It is only when we become aware of how we are being harmed and change our shopping habits — hurting their bottom line — that they change their tactics.  On the other hand, it’s encouraging to know that once we do come together for a common goal, anything can be accomplished, and we actually do have the potential and power to change our world.

Credit by :  Arjun Walia

"All In" Starter Package


The Fast Start


Level 2️⃣


Level 1️⃣


Level 4️⃣ (5000 USD)


Level 3️⃣ (1500 USD)