The Real Reason They Want to Give COVID Jabs to Kids. “Vaccine Makers Want Zero Liability”

“The reason they did 16 is because 16- and 17-year-olds are still on the children’s vaccination schedule. And then the manufacturer gets full liability protection.”

This article has been cross-posted from globalresearch.ca

Original article written by Dr. Joseph Mercola and Alix Mayer
on Mercola 9 January 2022

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The reason our children are being targeted by COVID mandates is because vaccine makers want to get the shots onto the childhood vaccination schedule.

Once a vaccine is added to the childhood schedule, the vaccine maker is shielded from financial liability for injuries, unless the manufacturer knows about vaccine safety issues and withholds that information

Products must satisfy four criteria in order to get emergency use authorization:

    1. There must be an emergency;
    2. a vaccine must be at least 30% to 50% effective;
    3. the known and potential benefits of the product must outweigh the known and potential risks of the product;
    4. and there can be no adequate, approved and available alternative treatments (drugs or vaccines). Unless all four criteria are met, EUA cannot be granted or maintained

According to a U.S. federal court decision, the Pfizer shot and BioNTech’s Comirnaty are not interchangeable

Comirnaty is not fully approved and licensed. It’s only “ready for approval.” Comirnaty is licensed to be manufactured, introduced into state commerce and marketed, but it’s not licensed to be given to anyone, and it’s not yet available in the United States. They’re waiting for it to be added to the childhood vaccination schedule, to get the liability shield

*


In this interview, Alix Mayer explains why our children are being so aggressively targeted for the COVID-19 injection even though they’re not at risk of serious SARS-CoV-2 infection, and clarifies the status of Comirnaty.

Mayer, board president of Children’s Health Defense — California Chapter, is herself vaccine injured; not from the COVID jab, but from a series of vaccines she received 20 years ago. (Incidentally, Mayer grew up in the Oscar Mayer family in the 5th generation descended from the original Oscar Mayer, a German immigrant who started as a butcher boy. Despite Mayer’s vaccine injury, her family does not share her views on vaccine safety issues.)

Mayer graduated from Duke University with a BA and from Northwestern University with an MBA in finance and management strategy. She worked for Apple in the mid-1990s. When she was 29, Apple promoted her to acting manager of worldwide customer research.

In preparation for a family trip to Bali, her doctor recommended getting six vaccines: hepatitis A vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, diphtheria, tetanus, polio and oral typhoid, which she did. Eventually, 13 years later, she finally realized it was these shots that triggered her health problems.

“They gave me brain damage and total disability,” she says. “I spent three years in my early 30s being 80% housebound, and I really I didn’t know if I was ever going to get better.

I went through a whole bunch of diagnoses: lupus, chronic fatigue syndrome, Lyme disease. Ultimately, none of those made sense and none of the treatments made me any better, until we put the pieces together and figured out that I was actually vaccine injured.

It’s literally just a cause and effect. If you look back at my history and lay out my vaccine schedule, you can see that my health declined two weeks after I got the vaccines.

I had encephalitis and encephalopathy … digestive issues, hypersomnia — sleeping 16 hours a day — flu-like symptoms, a 24/7 migraine, joint pain. I really had no life at all in my early 30s until I went on a gluten-free diet. That started my health recovery.

I then became an award-winning medical journalist with a bunch of different blogs, and then a health consultant. In 2018, I retired from all that and joined Children’s Health Defense.”

The COVID Jab Tragedy

While many vaccines have a questionable safety profile, especially when combined, data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) suggest there’s never been a vaccine as dangerous as the experimental mRNA gene transfer injections for COVID.

What’s more, while lack of transparency and accountability has been a chronic problem within the vaccine industry, the obvious hazards associated with vaccines are really being highlighted by the COVID jabs.

Many now know of someone who has been injured by the COVID jab, and most were injured so shortly after the shot that it’s hard to deny a correlation. The staggering number of injuries reported among adults who have received the COVID shot in turn highlights the insanity of rolling it out to young children.

According to Mayer, the reason they’re trying to mandate the COVID shot for children is to evade liability for injuries, because once a vaccine is on the childhood vaccination schedule, vaccine makers have immunity against lawsuits for injuries.

Vaccine Makers Want Zero Liability

The COVID shots currently have legal immunity against liability because they’re still under emergency use authorization (EUA). If you think BioNTech’s Comirnaty has been fully licensed, you’d be mistaken. Mayer explains:

“I put together a slide deck about Emergency Use Authorization (which you can see in the video interview above) because there is so much confusion over this and what’s really going on. Once you understand the genesis of EUA and the standards they have to meet in order to keep these products on the market, then you understand the behaviors [we’re now seeing].

They’re falling all over themselves to protect the EUAs for these products and also introduce other very confusing kinds of approval to get away with stuff. So, let me just start to clarify it right now.

This presentation is all about these three strangleholds that the vaccine makers and our government are never going to let go of … These are the things they’re guarding with their lives.

First of all, they need to guard the emergency … so they cannot have any early treatments. Those cannot exist. They’re also going for full liability protection, and children will be used as pawns to get them full liability protection.

Vaccine makers love EUA products because they have this huge liability shield. If you’re injured by an EUA vaccine, you can’t sue the manufacturer, you can’t sue the person who gave it to you, you can’t sue the institution where you got the shot.

You have to go through something called the CICP, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, where they’ll only cover unpaid medical expenses, and probably only for pharmaceuticals and lost wages.

Now, if you’re vaccine injured, let me tell you right now, you are not going to be using pharmaceuticals because they do not work for vaccine injury. They will make you sicker. You’ll be on two dozen pharmaceuticals before you know it and you’re going to be sick from those. They do not work. The only thing that’s going to get you better if you’re vaccine injured is natural treatments …

That’s the kind of treatment you’re going to need, and that’s not even covered, even if you were to get compensation. Everybody I know with chronic illness, whether it’s a child or an adult who has chronic fatigue syndrome, vaccine injury, Lyme disease, they’re paying $50,000 out of pocket per year.

If you can’t work and you have to pay for your treatment out of pocket, I don’t know how you ever get by. People suffer like crazy, they lose homes, they go into bankruptcy.”

Since its inception, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which pays for injuries caused by vaccines on the childhood vaccination schedule, has paid out about one-third of claims. It’s a long, arduous process that oftentimes takes years and in the end rarely provides adequate compensation.

“If you do end up getting compensation … they don’t pay it out in one lump sum, they pay it out year by year, and they pretty much hope that whoever is injured is actually going to die of their injuries before they get compensated.

That’s been said to me a bunch of times by people who’ve been through this horrible process. Now, the CICP has only compensated 3% of claims. And so far, there have been no approvals for [compensation] for COVID shot injuries,” Mayer says. [Editor’s note: The first COVID case was recently determined “eligible” for compensation, but the case has not yet been adjudicated.1]

Stages of Liability: EUA

In her slide show, Mayer reviews each of the stages of product liability, and whether the mRNA shots can be mandated. As mentioned, vaccine makers have no liability as long as their product is under EUA, as the product is investigational.

“Investigational is a synonym for experimental,” Mayer says. “And the word experimental ties it directly into the Nuremberg Code, which says that we cannot be experimented on [without consent]. We always have the right to accept or refuse a medical treatment.

[The Nuremberg Code] is not a law, but it’s a code under which the whole world is supposed to be operating by. And it is actually codified into some local and federal laws as well … So, what everybody needs to know is that coercion and duress are considered de facto mandates and illegal. De facto means that it’s basically the same as an outright mandate.

It’s illegal medical segregation, medical apartheid [because that is a form of coercion or duress.] So, if you go to a restaurant and they demand your vaccine passport, only let you eat outside, and they might not let you use the bathroom, that’s medical segregation.

That is illegal and I do not support businesses that do that and you shouldn’t either. Any access privileges that are different between the vaccinated and unvaccinated are illegal, and any visual indication of vaccine status like a sticker or a bracelet … that’s also illegal because that creates segregation and medical apartheid, [since they are all forms of coercion or duress.]”

Importantly, mass violation of the law does not make something legal.

“If we all drove 100 miles an hour on Interstate 80, would we watch the speed limit signs suddenly changed to 100 miles per hour? No, it’s not going to happen. Mass violation of the law has never made anything legal. And just because schools and businesses and our government are mandating these shots, it doesn’t make it legal. It’s all illegal …

Now, they know full well that it’s illegal to mandate these [COVID shots]. President Biden knows it’s illegal. But what they’re counting on is that the court cases overturning their illegal mandates will take a while, and in that interim, people are going to be scared enough to get the shots. And unfortunately, it’s worked.”

Stages of Liability: Full Licensure and Childhood Scheduling

The next stage is full licensure (FDA approval). Once a product is fully licensed, the company becomes liable for injuries. At that point, the product can be legally mandated. Of course, knowing how dangerous the COVID shots are, no manufacturer wants to be financially liable for injuries. They’d be sued out of business.

This is the holy grail if you’re a manufacturer of a COVID vaccine right now. You want it to be fully licensed, but not put on the market until you get it on the children’s schedule. ~ Alix Mayer

To get immunity against liability again, the vaccine manufacturers need to get their product onto the childhood vaccination schedule. This will also allow government to mandate the shots. As noted by Mayer:

“This is the holy grail if you’re a vaccine manufacturer of a COVID vaccine right now. You want it to be fully licensed, but not put it on the market until you get it on the children’s schedule.”

DOJ Redefines Medical ‘Consequence’

In Doe v. Rumsfeld,2 the court held that service members could refuse an EUA product without punitive consequences such as dishonorable discharge or other punishments. Therefore, there were no consequences to refusing an EUA product, other than the natural consequence of possibly getting the disease.

However, in July 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice attempted to redefine the term “consequences” just for the COVID shot, to suggest that punitive consequences, like job loss or being separated from your working or learning location, are legal when a person refuses an EUA vaccine.

“But this type of consequence, a punitive consequence, has never been adjudicated,” Mayer says. “That’s not in any law. This is just an opinion from the DOJ. And it absolutely means nothing, except it came from our DOJ, so people give it a lot of authority.

They also stated twice — and this is so hard to understand because it’s just beyond reason — that the right to accept or refuse an EUA product is ‘purely informational.’

Literally, you can read that you could die by taking it, but it’s purely informational. You cannot act on it. That’s what the DOJ says. Again, it’s not adjudicated, so it doesn’t mean anything. It’s an opinion. It holds no legal weight at all. So, as we said before, these mandates are starting to be overturned.”

Four Standards for EUA

There are four standards that must be fulfilled for an EUA. If any of these criteria are not met, EUA cannot be granted or maintained. First, the secretary of Health and Human Services has to declare and maintain a state of emergency. If the emergency were to go away, all EUA products would have to come off the market. And that doesn’t just mean vaccines. It also includes the PCR tests and even surgical masks.

The second standard is evidence of effectiveness. Historically, vaccines had to show a 70% or greater effectiveness, as measured by a fourfold increase in antibody levels, in order to qualify. For an EUA vaccine, the efficacy threshold is only 30% to 50%. In another departure from prior vaccine approvals, the COVID vaccine clinical trials relied on the RT-PCR test, not antibodies, to demonstrate effectiveness in the small “challenge phase” of the trials.

Now, you probably heard that the Pfizer shot was 95% effective when it first rolled out, but that was relative risk reduction, not absolute risk reduction. Confounding these two parameters is a common strategy used to make a product sound far better than it actually is. The absolute risk reduction for Pfizer’s shot was just 0.84%.3

For example, if a study divided people into two groups of 1,000 and two people in the group who didn’t get a fictional vaccine got infected, while only one in the vaccinated group got infected, the relative risk reduction would be reported as 100%. In terms of absolute risk reduction, the fictional vaccine only prevented 1 in 1,000 from getting the infection — a very poor absolute risk reduction.

The take-home message here is that even though the minimal threshold for effectiveness is ludicrously low, in terms of absolute risk reduction, these shots still don’t measure up. Within six months, even the relative risk reduction bottoms out at zero. What’s more, there’s evidence that the clinical trials were manipulated as well.

“I remember an analysis very early in lockdowns [that showed] if you added back all the probable cases of COVID to the clinical trial [data], the effectiveness went from 90% to between 19% and 29%,”4 Mayer says.

The third standard is that the known and potential benefits of the product must outweigh the known and potential risks of the product. In the case of COVID shots, there’s overwhelming evidence showing they do more harm than good.

The fourth and last standard that must be met is there can be no adequate, approved and available alternative treatments (drugs or vaccines). “This is why hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were quashed,” Mayer says. This is also another reason Comirnaty is not treated as a fully approved product in the U.S., because if it were, then all the other COVID shots that are under EUA would have to be removed from the market.

“This is a four-legged stool,” Mayer says. “If any one of these legs goes away, you have to take your EUA products off the market … by law. I put [state of] emergency and [treatment] alternatives in red, because those are two of the things that they have a stranglehold on; those are things they are guarding like crazy.

This means that every variant that comes out, they have to make it sound super scary to keep the emergency going. So, the variants serve a purpose. You have to think about these variants in the context of this crime, where they have to keep the emergency going to keep their products on the market.

You would think this emergency would stop maybe when we get to herd immunity, maybe if we get 90% vaccination uptake, maybe COVID is just going to go away, like smallpox did in the early 1900s [even though] only 5% of people were vaccinated. [But it won’t] go away [until] the shots get full approval and the manufacturers get a full liability shield.”

Comirnaty’s Quasi Approval

With regard to Comirnaty, is it or is it not fully approved and licensed? The answer is more complex than a simple yes or no. Mayer explains:

“Comirnaty’s quasi approval is just for BioNTech. It doesn’t have to do with Pfizer, and this is why I’m doing this presentation because I’m going to explain what’s going on with that.

This is the race to get liability protection. Remember, that’s the other stranglehold that they want. They really want to get this liability protection. Once the COVID shots are fully approved, the manufacturer has full liability.

There’s all this confusion about Comirnaty. Was it fully approved? Is it on the market? Is it interchangeable with the Pfizer shot? And does it make the COVID shot mandate legal? It’s all the same answer. No, no, no, no.

The FDA issued an intentionally confusing biological license application approval for Comirnaty. It was an unprecedented approval to both license the Comirnaty shot, saying it’s ‘interchangeable’ with the Pfizer shot. But they also said it’s ‘legally distinct.’

In that same approval, they retain the vaccine’s liability shield by designating it EUA as well. They want it to be fully approved, but they want the liability protection, so they did this BS dual approval.

So, [Comirnaty] is licensed to be manufactured, introduced into state commerce and marketed, but it’s not licensed to be given to anyone, and it’s not available in the United States. It’s available in the U.K., New Zealand and other places, but it is not available in the United States because they’re really scared of liability.

Now, are you ready for this one? The BLA actually states that Comirnaty is only ‘ready for approval.’5 It doesn’t say it’s approved anywhere in the document. And they buried this language in a pediatric section to confuse people even more.

Here’s what they said; ‘We’re deferring submission of your pediatric studies for ages younger than 16. For this application, because this product is ready for approval for use in individuals 16 years of age and older, as pediatric studies for younger ages have not been completed.’

Why did they do this? Sixteen is a very important number. You would think the age break would be 18. That’s a very typical age break for everything else that we do in this country. Why 16?

The reason they did 16 is because 16- and 17-year-olds are still on the children’s vaccination schedule. And then the manufacturer gets full liability protection. That’s why this is ready to be approved for 16 and up, not 18 and up.”

Comirnaty Is Not Fully Licensed

This confusion is clearly intentional. On the one hand, the FDA claims Comirnaty is interchangeable with the Pfizer shot, yet it’s also legally distinct. Courts have had to weigh in on the matter, and a federal judge recently rejected the DoD claim that the two shots are interchangeable. They’re not interchangeable. That means Comirnaty vaccine is still EUA. It doesn’t have full approval and it’s not on the market.

“Military members involved in lawsuits are challenging the military’s COVID vaccine mandate. They filed an amended complaint seeking a new injunction after the judge last month rejected the assertion that the Pfizer COVID shot and BioNTech’s Comirnaty are interchangeable. So, we’re still hammering on this legally, but a court has ruled that they’re not interchangeable.

[Editor’s note: This information is accurate at the time of the interview, but legal challenges are ongoing and courts may issue new rulings. December 22, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court announced6 it has slated January 7, 2022, to hear arguments challenging Biden’s vaccine and testing mandates.]

So, how do we know that Comirnaty is not being treated as fully approved? First, the approval states you have the right to accept or refuse the product. That means it’s an EUA. Second, it’s not available in the U.S. because Comirnaty doesn’t have liability protection. Third, if it were available, it’s an alternative [treatment] and all other EUA shots would have to come off the market.

No. 4, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) would have to recommend it for ages 16 to 18 and the CDC would have added it to the children’s recommended schedule. That’s how we know it’s not fully approved and on the market.

Here is the label for Comirnaty. It says it’s emergency use authorization. It doesn’t say it’s fully approved, because it’s not. But look at the safety information they are recognizing: Myocarditis and pericarditis have occurred in some people who’ve received the vaccine, more commonly in males under 40 years of age than among females and older males.

So, this is saying that young men are getting heart inflammation. And what we know from all the anecdotal reports is 300 athletes have died or collapsed on the field, and children in schools have died of heart attacks. That’s what’s going on here.

And the reason they have to declare this is because they know it. They know it’s happening. And the only way they can be sued is if they know there’s a problem with their vaccine and they don’t declare it. So, they declare it here, in very mild language as if it’s not that big of a deal, but it’s a very big deal. Young people are dying [from the shots] who have a 99.9973% chance of recovering from COVID …

The holy grail is to get the shot on the CDC recommended schedule for children, because then it gets full liability protection according to the 1986 Act. This is why they’re going after our children when they have a 99.9973% recovery rate …

Every medical intervention is a risk benefit equation, and it doesn’t calculate for kids at all. They should never be getting COVID shots. The shots don’t prevent transmission. They don’t prevent cases. They don’t prevent hospitalization or death.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

1 Reuters October 19, 2021

2 Biotech Law December 22, 2003

3 Maryannedemasi.com November 11, 2021

4 The BMJ Opinion

5 FDA BioNTech BLA Approval

6 USA Today December 22, 2021

NOTE FROM EXPANDING AWARENESS RELATIONS:

How egregious that the big pharmaceutical companies are trying to use children as a liability shield to protect their criminal organization. Even worse, however, are the governments/politicians and health officials/institutions that are letting them. No amount of “contracts” should ever protect criminal activity, which is what we’re seeing right now in what is quite possibly the largest racketeering scandal in the history of humankind.

(And in my opinion, this isn’t even covering the ACTUAL REAL reason that they want to vaccinate children so much. This is only the watered-down, “scientific”, realistic version…)

Any documents/legal dealings (keyword here: LEGAL – although, what does that matter when corrupt enterprises are able to re-define terms according to their purpose?) and NDA’s should automatically become null and void if there is fraudulent activity happening.

However, when those “in charge” are allowed to investigate themselves, they, of course, end up finding no wrong-doing. And when there are multiple conflicts of interest, all for the purpose of financial bribery and protecting each other, there needs to be effective systems in place to address this obvious malfeasance.

It would seem, the “law” (and even us, everyday/ordinary people) literally needs to take matters into its own hands, and stop catering to enforcing illegal mandates and nonsensical “policies”. When will they go after the REAL criminals, instead of innocent civilians who are simply trying to defend not only their rights and freedoms, but everyone else’s as well? Including law enforcement?

We all need to pick our side in history. Let’s hope we’re picking the right one.

Combining Health/Medical/Biodata Together with Artificial Intelligence – For OUR Benefit? Or For a Different Reason Altogether?

A.I. technology has made significant advances. But what if it never stops advancing?

As I was researching an individual (who shall not be named to protect their anonymity) – I came across a rather… intriguing company that they had an interest in.

For a little background, this individual has been speculated as getting their really young son vaccinated, even before it was authorized in their area. For additional reference, it would seem that being involved in the NHS is also an important part of their repertoire – so perhaps they are of the UK region.

Again, these are more of a supposition based on their information, so please take it with a grain of salt.

Sadly, this individual lost their son not too long ago.

Now, just out of curiosity sakes (not to condemn, provoke, judge, or anything of the sort) I took an initiative to research their twitter page for additional information. What were their other interests/involvements? What makes this person a pro-vaccine advocate? Etc. This is where the information about the NHS comes from.

And in addition, there was another company listed that really took me aback. And that will be the focus of what this post is about.

The DEMON Network

“We are the international network for the application of data science and AI to dementia research. The Deep Dementia Phenotyping (DEMON) Network brings together academics, clinicians and other partners from across the world. By connecting these people, we can identify innovative approaches to interdisciplinary collaborative dementia research across multiple institutions.

Our vision is to revolutionise dementia research and healthcare by bringing innovators together and harnessing the power of data science and AI.”

Source: [ https://demondementia.com/about/ ]

Further research into this group and the above individual’s interests revealed human genomes/genetics and deep brain integration with AI as additional fields of pursuit.

Very interesting.

And once again, just as the SATiN technology – I have to point out the incredibly unnecessary and non-sense acronym that they have decided to choose for their company.

“Deep Dementia Phenotyping (DEMON)”?

It is quite obvious the allusion that they were going for.

Now, for the sake of playing Devil’s advocate (no pun intended), perhaps they only mean it as a reference that ‘dementia’ is such an awful disease and so they are calling dementia itself a “demon”, in the most figurative of sense. Or, one can construe it in the sense that some people have described the symptoms of dementia as that of someone being demonically possessed – the change in personality, the trembling/shaking, sudden aggression, etc. So perhaps their motive was to highlight this detail – as controversial as that would be.

However, under the assumption that anyone who has faith/belief in God/Jesus Christ, or even who believes in preserving humanity in our natural state, and who would not want to tamper with His creations in such a way as to genetically modify and/or merge us (or any other living being) with man-made technology, the rationale that the groups of people initiating this sort of invasive work would deliberately choose the acronym it did for more of a shock value than anything else, and to perhaps mock those who are against this sort of contentious work, would make more sense.

There is, of course, the darker side of the argument, and that’s that the founder(s) of something like DEMON Network, fully believe that they are serving a “demonic” agenda.

No one likes to contemplate on this subject. No one wants to believe that someone running a large organization in manipulating, modifying, genetically changing, hacking the software of life, collecting medical/biological/DNA information – could possibly be involved in such a thing as “demonic worship”, or idolizing machines – like artificial intelligence, for example – or would attempt to personify a computer learning algorithm/intelligence as a “beast system”.

Yet, when digging into transhumanism, technological advancements, the agendas of certain “philanthropic” billionaires and globalists, government agencies… one thing seems to tie them all together. And that is, indeed, a reset of humanity in some way, that involves merging us with machine.

This is NO SECRET, and has been admitted by everyone from Klaus Schwab, to Bill Gates, to Elon Musk, to Henry Kissinger (who was a professor of Klaus Schwab) to institutions such as DARPA.

Getting back to the DEMON Network, who has partnered with the UK Dementia Research Institute, I have selected a few short excerpts from an interview between David Llewellyn (founder of DEMON Network) and Bart De Strooper of the UK DRI that can be found at the following link: [ https://demondementia.com/podcast-using-ai-data-to-fight-dementia/ ] “Podcast: Using AI & data to fight dementia”

David Llewellyn: “We deliberately, I mean, it’s designed to encourage collaboration and new ideas, dangerous ideas, so we want people to join who don’t know anything about dementia. Maybe they know all about transfer learning, or other forms of machine learning, or artificial intelligence.”

Interviewer Megan O’Hare: “When we got given the topic for this podcast, thought to myself, I should probably actually, work out what artificial intelligence is. Obviously we use the word a lot, and you think of that Will Smith film, and – but, and so I had to look around and there’s the cheering test. Which is basically the test of a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to or indistinguishable from that of a human.

But I wanted, because you’re both coming at it from different places, how you view A.I.? Um, to how you think it will impact dementia research? Maybe, David, we start with you?”

David Llewellyn: “Well, it’s a difficult thing to pin down. Because it obviously means different things to different people. But I think in its, in its broader sense, artificial intelligence is the idea that we’ll create machines that think for themselves, and they’re able to exhibit intelligent characteristics without, without us pulling levers; manually inputting and prodding and poking them into what they should be doing.

And the most ambitious form of artificial intelligence is a sort of creation of a new digital, sentient being, which will take over the world and enslave us.

And that’s the – that’s the thing that, that some people worry about. You know, the point at which machines don’t just match our performance, but start to exceed our performance. So that – that’s the, that is a fascinating and yet, and as yet unachieved ambition. That not everyone thinks we should be aiming for either.

I don’t think many people are arguing we’ve created a super-intelligent yet. But it’s possible. It’s possible.

Bart De Strooper: “These are the advances of molecule biology, and how it’s done at the moment is it’s very simplistic. We use a – we use a… […] I apologize to my colleagues – but we take a cell, we put a DNA in it, we express the protein, and then we see things happening, of course, and everything that’s biology. Of course! Biology’s much more complicated.

You need to – to, and that’s – so the next step in molecule biology was, if I’m boring you please interrupt me, but next step was the mouse stuff. When we changed the gene, and then we saw the whole thing change in the mouse.”

Bart De Strooper: “There will be a moment, and that’s also the vision of the DRI, there is a moment that most of the research will be in silico.

Bart De Strooper: “I think that in the 10 years, I foresee for me now, still going on, that’s – a lot of the classical biology will be replaced by, by this combination of silico prediction, and then tested. In 20 years, it’s probably going to be the classical biologists will be a rare species.

David Llewellyn: “Well if you listen to some people, artificial intelligence will make us all redundant.”

Image credited to: UK Dementia Research Institute

And as Dr. James Giordano so succinctly put it, when given funding from multiple different organizations, the possibility of “dual-use” medical/scientific interventions becomes an obvious motive.

Take a study/research that involves David Llewellyn and others on behalf of the European Task Force for Brain Health Services:

[ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8507172/ ] “Modifiable risk factors for dementia and dementia risk profiling. A user manual for Brain Health Services”

Some noteworthy possible Conflicts of Interest that could have influenced some of the research/funding/studies, etc. of such endeavors involves the following companies:

Source: [ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8507172/ ] “Modifiable risk factors for dementia and dementia risk profiling. A user manual for Brain Health Services”

AstraZeneca
BioCross
Biogen
Elan Pharmaceuticals
Genentech
Janssen
Lilly
Lundbeck
Novartis
Pfizer

Those are some extremely familiar names. Now why is this so important?

Well, aside from the very unusual name (DEMON Network) and their possible involvement/affiliations with the above listed organizations – imagine a company being able to provide a cure for such a debilitating illness – like dementia/Alzheimer’s for instance. In fact, imagine a complete cure for anything you can think of.

Cancer. The common cold. Heart attacks. Depression. Schizophrenia. ADHD. AIDS. So on and so forth.

Now ask yourself, what happens to these companies when the cure is established and no one is sick from anything anymore? Well, quite obviously, people won’t need on-going medicine/drugs/therapists/vaccines… etc., etc. Thus, putting the medical field largely out of a very lucrative business. As long as they can keep flourishing with an abundance of “sick” people, an actual CURE would destroy their whole entire foundation.

So from a strictly financial/business point of view, the medical field would be shooting themselves in the foot if they were to ever find such a beneficial treatment. The smart, yet extremely underhanded thing to do, would be to keep the falsehood going that they are treating you, while keeping you sick all the while to peddle drugs and even more treatments to “cure” additional ailments.

Now, am I necessarily saying that this is exactly what’s going on here? Well… there are many signs that certainly do point in that direction. But I am also of the belief that there are people in those institutions that don’t believe this, and who are, in fact, very honest and genuine people trying to help others with their illnesses. But it doesn’t mean that it’s not going on.

Perhaps even some in that field are becoming disillusioned with their very own profession/career and the suspicious activities that their organizations have engaged in. But one can’t help but wonder if this is the true motive of the medical institutions.

And again, it certainly does not help when they pair up with foundations named DEMON Network who are interested in implementing A.I. algorithms and tracking/monitoring human being’s physiology; under the false guise, in my opinion, of helping people.

Elon Musk makes an eerie reference

As mentioned earlier, Elon Musk, who is eager to start implementing his Neuralink implants into human beings next year (2022), has said this rather… interesting “hyperbole” about A.I.’s back in 2014:

Elon Musk: “And with artificial intelligence, we are summoning the demon. You know? You know all those stories where, there’s the guy with the pentagram and the holy water, and he’s like, yeah, he’s sure he can control the demon. [exaggerated winking]

It didn’t work out.

Sure this very well could have been strictly a metaphor, but in context of the individuals/organizations who truly are interested in A.I. technology, and the transhumanism efforts, and who also seem to have an uncanny alliance/affiliation with the Lucis Trust (formerly the Lucifer Trust), the supposition that it is all just a coincidence gets less and less certain.

Metabolic Machines and Demons of Life

In addition to all of that, are even more allusions to the “demonic” qualities that artificial intelligence/computing systems seem to possess. (again, no pun intended)

Thomas Feuerstein is an artist who focuses a lot on biotechnology and fuses biological organisms (algae, human cells) into his artwork. Again, with an interest in artificial intelligence as well, his take on what artificial intelligence is, coupled with his artwork, presents an even deeper meaning into a “demon network” that I don’t think many of us are aware of.

Take the following excerpts from Feuerstein’s presentation for consideration:

All quotes by Thomas Feuerstein:

“Data metabolic systems, I mean works that eat and […] digest data autonomously, and convert them into new data, always based on a software that I call “demon”.

In ancient Greece, the daemon was a translator between ideas and meta, gods and humans. And furthermore, a daemon or demon was a distributor of fate, of resources, goods and information.”

“To this day, the word “demon” hides in many common words, theories and concepts. For example, democracy comes from demos, which means people or nations. And “daemos” derives from daemon. In this sense, a daemon is a governor, a decision maker, and an allocator.”

“Demons today are not only fictional or mythical creatures in literature, religions, superstition, or pop culture. We find them also in science, technology, art, economics, and politics.

And as I said before, without demons there can be no governance, and no cybernetics.

Our daily lives are full of demons, and with the emergence of new technologies and A.I., cultural demons are becoming more and more relevant in a networked society. We find them in electronic devices, in the form of algorithmic trading, in biotechnology, surveillance technology – “

“The ancient concepts of demons we have to sink in new contexts. More and more demons become machines; biochemical and digital machines.”

“Another very strong demon, the Holy Spirit, enters not as a higher source any longer. It enhances the brain, digital and molecular. In future times maybe we are all enlightened people, speaking in tongues and glossolalia becomes a molecular and digital application in our brain.

For example, the company Neuralink, wants to implant brain computer interfaces – so called BCI, to connect the brain with the internet.

Ironically I can say in the future we may not only have artificial intelligence, we may have artificial identity.”

“Deep meaning reminds me of DeepDream from Google [editor’s note: who, unironically, removed the motto “Don’t be evil” from their code of conduct policy…], and shows that the genius is not a person with special abilities, but someone who is controlled by a higher intelligence and ruled like a puppet.”

” – Fernando Corbato and the science team at the MIT, wrote the computer program “daemon”. It was a simple backup program, and daemon was a backronym for a disk and execution monitor. And this is important, because it was the beginning of machines started to talk to themselves. It influenced all later programs from chat BOTS to search BOTS to viruses and artificial intelligence agents. And in this sense, the most mightful and greedy demon who haunts the internet today is the Google bot.”

“More and more demons take possession of our environment and connect us imperceptibly with networked processes. These demons lurk in smartphones and smart homes.”

“Another cosmist, Nikolai Federov, describes the machinist of the future as a place not for death, but for technical reanimated humans. This was science fiction at the time, but today where Google, Facebook […] are constantly collecting data, a digital reapers is approaching technical feasability.

Ironically I would say, we will end not in graves, we will end as demons in cyberspace.”

And like Thomas Feuerstein mentioned, the demon/daemon terminology to describe computer programs/artificial intelligence is an expression  – at least from a computer programmer/hacker’s point of view.

In The Original Hacker’s Dictionary, it describes daemon and demon as the following:

DAEMON (day’mun, dee’mun) [archaic form of “demon”, which has slightly different connotations (q.v.)] n. A program which is not invoked explicitly, but which lays dormant waiting for some condition(s) to occur. The idea is that the perpetrator of the condition need not be aware that a daemon is lurking (though often a program will commit an action only because it knows that it will implicitly invoke a daemon). For example, writing a file on the lpt spooler’s directory will invoke the spooling daemon, which prints the file. The advantage is that programs which want (in this example) files printed need not compete for access to the lpt. They simply enter their implicit requests and let the daemon decide what to do with them. Daemons are usually spawned automatically by the system, and may either live forever or be regenerated at intervals. Usage: DAEMON and DEMON (q.v.) are often used interchangeably, but seem to have distinct connotations. DAEMON was introduced to computing by CTSS people (who pronounced it dee’mon) and used it to refer to what is now called a DRAGON or PHANTOM (q.v.). The meaning and pronunciation have drifted, and we think this glossary reflects current usage.

DEMON (dee’mun) n. A portion of a program which is not invoked explicitly, but which lays dormant waiting for some condition(s) to occur. See DAEMON. The distinction is that demons are usually processes within a program, while daemons are usually programs running on an operating system. Demons are particularly common in AI programs. For example, a knowledge manipulation program might implement inference rules as demons. Whenever a new piece of knowledge was added, various demons would activate (which demons depends on the particular piece of data) and would create additional pieces of knowledge by applying their respective inference rules to the original piece. These new pieces could in turn activate more demons as the inferences filtered down through chains of logic. Meanwhile the main program could continue with whatever its primary task was.”

So now one has to wonder, are the agendas of the “DEMON Network” really to help those with dementia? Or, as Professor David Llewellyn implied himself, are they more interested in:

“Dr Megan O’Hare interviews Professor Bart De Strooper and Professor David Llewellyn, discussing the new UK Dementia Research Institute and DEMON Network partnership to unlock the potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI).”?

Fact checking is extremely important. I want to reiterate not to take everything at face value; no matter what you read, where you read it from, or who you hear it from. And to be clear, do not rely on “fact checking” websites to give you accurate information either. These are just as likely, (if not even more likely…), to feed false information and false debunking accounts to manipulate the reader. Please take everything into consideration before adhering to a certain narrative – and always keep your mind open to other possibilities.

Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.

Featured image by Tayeb MEZAHDIA from Pixabay

SHOCKING Images of Nanosensors/Nanowires in the Vaccines | Dr. Pablo Campra: “The [graphene] system can self-assembly once injected in the body”

Dr. Campra also poses a very serious, life-changing inquiry.

As has been mentioned throughout this site in numerous posts, I have focused on some of the technological advancements and agendas that those at the top levels of global dominance have tried to implement onto the rest of the population.

Vaccines, of course, at least at the time being, seeming to be the main focal point.

The admissions from several doctors, scientists, “world leaders” – that their initiative involves combining medical drug therapies (again, namely vaccines) with gene-editing tools and digital technology – should be an obvious sign that this is not only an attempt at changing our human nature, but also a means of utmost control and surveillance.

“We’re entering the era of the “Internet of Bodies”: collecting our physical data via a range of devices that can be implanted, swallowed or worn.”

“In 2017, the U.S. Federal Drug Administration approved the first use of digital pills in the United States. Digital pills contain tiny, ingestible sensors, as well as medicine. Once swallowed, the sensor is activated in the patient’s stomach and transmits data to their smartphone or other devices.”

“As the Internet of Bodies spreads into every aspect of our existence, we are facing a range of new challenges.”

Web Archive/weforum: Tracking how our bodies work could change our lives

What better way to initiate this goal than to plan for a worldwide pandemic [Event 201 (conducted in 2019 to address a worldwide coronavirus pandemic)… “This board has been urgently convened by the World Economic Forum.” – Anita Cicero], induce widespread fear and panic in the media, in order to provoke a response to get people to demand a tracking app/vaccine?

The answer’s are there. If one sets aside bias and disbelief.

Dr. Pablo Campra, PhD in Chemical Sciences, Department of Agronomy, has independently researched several vials of different COVID vaccines at the request of La Quinta Columna, and has found stunning (terrifying) images that depict what can only be described as nanotechnology.

Along with fiber looking material resembling Morgellons, Dr. Pablo Campra is sure that there is graphene oxide in these vials. Now he addresses engineers, technicians, electricians – anyone who is familiar with technology and nanoparticles, to come forward and do their own independent research to investigate what these “fibers, wires, particulates, chips” really are and why they are in the vaccines.

While Dr. Campra and many others are already hypothesizing and theorizing what these vaccines really are, their conclusions are incredibly alarming, and should be a wake-up call to us all to reflect on what’s really going on in the world.

Full transcript of the interview between Stew Peters and Dr. Pablo Campra.
Some embellishment has been added for emphasis.

Stew Peters: “Well, in this show we’ve repeatedly mentioned the work by La Quinta Columna in Spain. That name means the 5th Column, and it’s a group of dissident researchers who’ve investigated these shots being falsely referred to as vaccines.

Most importantly, they’re the ones who studied a vaccine sample and found graphene oxide in it.

Dr. Pablo Campra is a professor of chemical sciences at the University of Almeria. But he’s also affiliated with La Quinta Columna and has dedicated himself to performing an independent analysis of vaccine samples.

And now he’s released his findings in 3 parts. Earlier this month he put his full graphene oxide findings on Researchgate.

His findings were clear. Using a technique called micro raman spectroscopy, he found ample evidence of graphene oxide structures within random vaccine samples.

But Dr. Campra’s follow-up research could be even more important. If it can be. In another researchgate paper, Campra speculates that microstructures seen in the vaccines made of graphene oxide could be components in a wireless nano-sensor network.

It’s all pretty remarkable. So we’re happy to have Dr. Campra on with us now to get some of the details.

Thank you so much for being here from Spain.”

Dr. Pablo Campra: “Yes, Stew. Nice to be on the show. I’m a follower.”

Stew Peters: “Great, we’re happy to have you.

So we originally reported on your graphene oxide findings. They were discovered by Dr. Jane Ruby. You’re still convinced that graphene oxide is in these shots? That’s indisputable?

Dr. Pablo Campra: “Yeah, definitely.

Well, first to make clear, I don’t belong to La Quinta Columna. La Quinta Columna is the channel of free information. And they hired me to – they asked me to, to do this research to detect the graphene particles in vials. Because they have the theory that those vials contain some material that can be responsible for the magnetic effects, the magnetization of bodies, and also for the emission of bluetooth calls. Bluetooth radio waves from vaccinated people. So, they asked me to find the prime material for all the system – that’s supposed to be graphene oxide.

And that was my role in the first level of research. The other two levels is engineers, experts on this field that are doing it now. And they have – they managed to compare some images from my research and they, they claim that those are nano-routers and nano-sensors. So it’s an on-going research. It’s not my responsibility.

Image source for all 3 images: Dr. Pablo Campra/Stew Peters Show

Stew Peters: “So was a chemical analysis ever done to verify graphene oxide?”

Dr. Pablo Campra: “Yeah. What we did is on a spectral investigation. Once you get the micro raman picture, you get the photographs, and then you focus the laser beam on those bodies and then you can be sure of the structure they have.

So we detected the graphene structure in some of the nanoparticles that we were screening in the vials.

Stew Peters: “Was the work ever replicated, in more vials?”

Dr. Pablo Campra: “No. – Yeah, we, we had only 7 different vials from 4 different trademarks. And we managed to find this structure in 28 nanoparticles out of 110 possible graphene particles, according to their image. The micro raman is a technique where you match the image with a spectra. Then you can be sure that what you find is that structure.”

Stew Peters: “So you guys came out with this, it’s been months now, that you guys came out with this. We reported on it. There have been a lot of independent researchers, microscopy experts, scientists, that have corroborated, ‘yes, graphene oxide is in these’.

We recently had a Pfizer whistleblower on this program – Melissa McAtee, who said, look, here’s an email that specifically tells the PR department at Pfizer, from the top scientist over there, how to handle this graphene oxide thing being in there.

So they’re not even denying anymore, really, that graphene oxide is in these things. But fact-checkers originally were all over this. And they used, ‘well Pfizer said that it’s not in there’, as their basis for fact-checking you. So to those people, what would you say, to anybody who doubts that graphene oxide is in these vials. In these bioweapon injections. What would you say to them?”

Dr. Pablo Campra: “Well you know, there’s very little free research on this trail. There’s only a few people, isolated people; institutions/academy is out of this research, totally. So, it’s only a few people that is taking pictures of objects or nano- nanoparticles that may resemble graphene oxide.

But I… I haven’t found anyone who’s done a similar analysis. So I claim that people like, for instance, Carrie Madej, she had a great interview with you or Botha, who are watching blood samples. They can use the same technique of micro raman, because I have seen some nanoparticles – these dark carbonaceous blots, these big particles. And sure, those are graphene. And they just need to, to focus their beam of a micro raman laser on those, and make sure they have that structure on blood.

I haven’t done it. But, I claim they could do it. So I’m sure anyone using the, this technique can detect this structure. Just detect. Then we have to characterize it, that can be different types of graphene – the concentration, toxicity… we haven’t worked on that. But what we claim is that more independent researchers do this the same, and replicate our findings.”

Stew Peters: “Why do you think it’s so important that graphene oxide is exposed? I mean, obviously it’s a toxic substance. Why do you think it’s in these vials.”

Dr. Pablo Campra: “Well, first of all, it’s not in the list of ingredients. That’s important. And it – it’s been cited in literature as the basis of this nano – wireless nano-sensor/wireless network. So… it’s been cited in for 10 years, now. So now some experts here in Spain, they have located nanoparticles that might be part of the – of this system.

And graphene is the prime material of this system. So, what we think, what my find is – I haven’t seen the whole assembly of this systems. But the system can self-assembly once injected in the body. So, this is a new line of research.”

Stew Peters: “Do you see, so – there’s been a lot of speculation about this 5G connectivity. Is that specifically what you’re talking about? I mean, this is becoming less tin-foil hat, less conspiracy theory, and more reality as you dig into this? I mean, I’m relying on your expertise here.”

Dr. Pablo Campra: “No, it’s not my expertise, but anybody can enter in the blog of these experts from Spain, it’s called, corona2inspect. Corona2inspect.

They have present this theory – according to scientific literature, and matching the images from our work, with images from literature, and they’re sure that this system is possible nowadays, based on graphene. And they’re discovering everyday new elements of the whole network.

So we need to match this also with the bluetooth signal from vaccinated people. So it’s the whole researchers – the free […]. My responsibility is only to detect it. Detecting the prime material.”

Stew Peters: “Did you just say ‘bluetooth’? You, did – did you just say a bluetooth signal from vaccinated people? They’re emitting a bluetooth signal? Is that right?”

Dr. Pablo Campra: “Yeah, that – there’s a group in France, we’re in contact with them, and they’re doing a more detailed research on this. But anybody can do a research on this. With a simple mobile phone, and bluetooth scanning app; and iphones and Samsungs don’t work, but you need to download an app.

And you can get very easily this MAC code, M.A.C. code – it’s 6 letters and numbers, from many people. And then you have to do the research of making sure that they don’t have a small watch, or headphones, or Internet of the Things devices that could yield this image.

And we are sure from this research that this signal is real. It’s real. Not in all vaccinated people, but in a high percentage of people.”

Stew Peters: “Why do you think it’s different from some people than from others?”

Dr. Pablo Campra: “Well, it depends. There’s a high variability in the vials we have observed. Also in the adverse effects. So it’s not on the […] jabbing. And so that’s quite a big variability.

And also the system in some people gets installed, and other people don’t. For instance, graphene is something that you can buy at the grade with months of time. So like if we’re doing 3 and 6 months, you can degradate it. But if you get another jab, then you get the system again back. So, we think some people are more prone to install this system, than others.”

Stew Peters: “I just cannot get over what you’re – what you’re talking about. My brain just keeps going back to this, human being’s are emitting a discoverable bluetooth transmission.

I mean, that is not supposed to be happening, Dr. Campra. Is it?”

Dr. Pablo Campra: “This is in literature. The system is, has been signed and implemented long ago. The new thing is that they are probably injecting it into people without their consent. So the system can be used to control your neural network, your – your mind, your emotions, it can control your physiology; it works.

It’s described in literature. But I’m not expert on this, but I think the expert on this should take a look at our pictures, pictures in blood, and try to… unveil the system. That we think, well, it resembles what this – what’s called in the Revelation book, the mark of the beast. This can do the same things. You can buy, sell things, it can control and monitor your mind, your faults, so… I think it’s something worth it to be […].”

Stew Peters: “Here in the United States, we talk about things like critical race theory, transgender acceptance, the indoctrination of our kids in schools. There’s an incessant push to get this injection into our school children; into our kids. Presumably to control their thought process. Their minds. Because the indoctrination is not working, or, maybe in some homes there’s a mother and a father who vehemently oppose that, and teach real core values to their children. 

Our military is being subjected to this shot. They’re being discharged, possibly court martialed, and thrown into the brig if they’re not injected. Imagine controlling the minds of an entire military.

Dr. Pablo Campra:Yeah, this is the feature of the mark of the beast, is this, is that it has to be mandatory. And anyone excluded from it will be excluded from society. So the technology exists, it’s described in the literature, and we just need it to be mandatory.

And then we have to think about which – what time of the history we are living on. I am not – you are a Christian, I know, I am Catholic. And we know this time is unique in history. So… we think we might be very near to unveil this mark.

Stew Peters: “Unbelievable. Um, I would like – would you agree to come back for an extended sit-down interview with me where we can talk a little bit more in depth about these things? Because I think that – I mean, people obviously have been waiting for a very long time to hear from you on this research. Would you come back again for an exclusive with me? We’ll sit down?”

Dr. Pablo Campra: “Yeah, sure. I will be happy. The problem is I am not expert in nanotechnologies. I am just working in the first level of research detecting this material. And I think you should better find someone in Spain or there, I’m sure there are many technicians in the U.S. who know about these systems. And they should save the – the images which, again, they are in my researchgate. We are uploading all of them. They can save these elements, could be the elements of this network.

But I’m, I’m happy to go back, but I don’t have much to say about the system; it’s not my expertise. It’s just a working hypothesis that engineers are working here.”

Stew Peters: “I’ve got about a minute left, what is… what do you want to say? What is the most important thing that you want to get out here today?”

Dr. Pablo Campra: “I guess tell people that they have to choose between the truth, and the false. Problems like yours, they have people to do it. So. That’s what I have to say.”

Stew Peters: “Dr. Pablo Campra, thank you so much for being here. We appreciate it.”

Dr. Pablo Campra: “Thanks. I appreciate it.”

Some additional images that Dr. Pablo Campra captured from various vials and states of the COVID vaccines are the following:

(for a full account, please visit his researchgate publications @Pablo Campra)

Small list of self-assembling/graphene oxide/nanoparticles in the medical/scientific literature:

[ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21080682/ ] “Three-dimensional self-assembly of graphene oxide and DNA into multifunctional hydrogels” (2010)

[ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23212421/ ] “Biomolecular coronas provide the biological identity of nanosized materials” (2012)

[ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23369286/ ] “Self-assembled free-standing graphene oxide fibers” (2013)

[ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24852899/ ] “Self-assembly of graphene oxide at interfaces” (2014)

[ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/advs.201700626 ] “Self-Assembled Graphene-Based Architectures and Their Applications” (2017)

[ https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2019/nh/c8nh00318a ] “Graphene oxide touches blood: in vivo interactions of bio-coronated 2D materials” (2018)

[ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33112593/ ] “Person-Specific Biomolecular Coronas Modulate Nanoparticle Interactions with Immune Cells in Human Blood” (2020)

One last mention, there are allusions (to outright admissions…) of attempts at altering humankind that one can find throughout various esoteric/philosophical/religious literature. What one chooses to do with that information is up to them. But to say that this is not a goal of dominating forces would be incredibly naive and gullible.

Thank you so much to Dr. Pablo Campra for investigating these vaccines and going through so much research. Having an honest person’s perspective is incredibly needed, especially in a time where deceit, manipulation and censorship has run rampant throughout the media.

Many blessings to Dr. Campra and other researchers, readers, interviewers like Stew Peters, etc. who are seeking the truth.

*Featured image source: Dr. Pablo Campra/Stew Peters Show