Walensky and Fauci Fumble in Their Responses to the Senate Committee, with Rand Paul’s Call for Fauci to Resign – But is the Senate Culpable as Well?

Rand to Fauci: “You won’t admit that it’s dangerous, and for that lack of judgement, I think it’s time that you resign.”

This post is not meant to convey whether or not there is an existence of a “deadly virus” or not. But it is to point out the suspicious nature of experiments that the NIH has funded/endorsed in regards to gain-of-function research, and also to show the indirect and dishonest responses from two individuals who have been spear-heading the shady “coronavirus/vaccine” situation.

The spotlight is on CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, and NIH/NIAID Infectious Disease “expert” Anthony Fauci.

Now, I want to first preface by saying that I am withholding judgement on the legitimacy of Senate hearings to begin with. While I would love to believe that there are indeed good politicians in high places that can make real change in ousting corruption in big establishments, many are speculating that psyops have been put in place to prolong certain narratives while keeping people’s hopes alive that something will be done about it. And of course we can’t ignore the possibility that even if there are those who are trying to make a real positive change, they may be set against a huge criminal organization who will stop at nothing in order to drive their own agenda forward.

Case in point: Walensky, the FDA, Pfizer, etc. have already gone ahead with their atrocious approval of these dangerous COVID “vaccines” on children, in which this agenda should never have gone on so far to begin with since there is ample evidence that the vaccines have nothing to do with our health and are definitely NOT “safe and effective”.

So to continue witnessing this farce without arrests being made casts a dubious look into the justice system as it is. Not only do Fauci, Bourla, Gelman, Daszak, Walensky, Gates, their agencies, as well as complicit governmental bodies, including Joe Biden, etc. have immense crimes to answer for, but the whole legal/legislative systems seems to be right behind them if this is allowed to continue further.

(This is, of course, under the assumptions that the whole of the legal/legislative structure isn’t already completely corrupted/broken to begin with…)

With that being said, I would still like to point out the following two Senators that are at least calling out Walensky and Fauci for their complicity in keeping this ruse going. Senators Rand Paul and Bill Cassidy certainly seem as if they are trying to get to the bottom of these narratives. But could they be merely actors on a stage? Keeping us happily engaged in believing that the “good guys” are making progress? Or are they genuinely one of the few brave souls standing up to deceit and subterfuge?

I will say this: while Anthony Fauci is a known liar, how good is his acting? He certainly looks shaken up as Rand Paul questions him…

Senator Rand Paul@58:24: “Fauci, I don’t expect you today to admit that you approved of NIH funding for gain-of-function research at Wuhan. But your repeated denials have worn thin and the majority of Americans, frankly, don’t believe you.

Even the NIH now admits that EcoHealth Alliance did perform experiments in Wuhan that created viruses not found in nature that actually did gain in lethality.

The facts are clear. The NIH did fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan despite your protestations. You can deny it all you want, but even the Chinese authors of the paper, in their paper, admit that viruses not found in nature were created, and yes they gained in infectivity.

Your persistent denials though are not simply a stain on your reputation, but are clear and present danger to the country, and to the world. As Professor Kevin Esvelt of MIT has written, “Gain of function research looks like a gamble that civilization can’t afford to risk.” And yet here we are again, with you steadfast in your denials. Why does it matter? Because gain-of-function research with laboratory created viruses not found in nature, could cause a pandemic even worse the next time.

We’re suffering today from one that has a mortality of approximately 1%, they’re experimenting with viruses that have mortalities of between 15 and 50%. Yes, our civilization could be at risk from one of these viruses.

Experiments that combine unknown viruses with known pandemic causing viruses are incredibly risky. Experiments that combine unknown viruses with coronaviruses that have as much as 50% mortality could endanger civilization as we know it.

And here you sit. Unwilling to accept any responsibility for the current pandemic, and unwilling to take any steps to prevent gain-of-function research from possibly unleashing an even more deadly virus.

You mislead the public by saying that the published viruses could not be COVID. Well exactly no one is alleging that. No one is alleging that the published viruses by the Chinese are COVID. What we are saying is that this was risky type of research; gain-of-function research. It was risky to share this with the Chinese, and that COVID may have been created from a not yet revealed virus. We don’t anticipate the Chinese are going to reveal the virus if it came from their lab.

You know that, but you continue to mislead. You continue to support NIH money going to Wuhan. You continue to say you trust the Chinese scientist. You appear to have learned nothing from this pandemic.

Will you today finally take some responsibility for funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan?”

Anthony Fauci: “Senator, with all due respect, I disagree with so many of the things that you’ve said.

Gain – first of all, gain-of-function is a very nebulous term. We have spent, not us, but outside bodies, a considerable amount of effort to give a more precise definition to the type of research that is of concern that might lead to a dangerous situation.

You are aware of that. That is called P3CO.”

Senator Rand Paul: “We’re aware that you deleted “gain-of-function” from the NIH website.”

Anthony Fauci: “Well I can get back to that a moment, if we have time. But let’s get back to the operating framework and guide rails of which we operate under. And you have ignored them. The guidelines are very very clear, that you have to be dealing with a pathogen that clearly is shown and very likely to be highly transmissible in an uncontrollable way in humans and to have a high degree of morbidity and mortality, and that you do experiments to enhance that. Hence the word EPPP: Enhanced Pathogens of Potential Pandemic.”

Senator Rand Paul: “So when EcoHealth Alliance took the virus SHC-014 and combined it with WIV-1 and caused a recombinant virus that doesn’t exist in nature, and it made mice sicker, mice that had humanized cells, you’re saying that that’s not gain-of-function research?”

Anthony Fauci: “According to the framework and guidelines of – “

Senator Rand Paul: “So what you’re doing is defining away gain-of-function. You’re simply saying it doesn’t exist because you changed the definition on the NIH website. This is terrible and you’re – you’re completely trying to escape the idea that we should do something about trying to prevent a pandemic from leaking from a lab.

There’s – the preponderance of evidence now points towards this coming from the lab, and what you’ve done is change the definition on your website to try to cover your ass, basically. That’s what you’ve done. You’ve changed the website to try to have a new definition that doesn’t include the risky research that’s going on.

Until you admit that it’s risky, we’re not going to get anywhere. You have to admit that this research was risky. The NIH has now rebuked them. Your own agency has rebuked them.

But the thing is, you’re still unwilling to admit that they gained in function when they say that they became sicker. They gained in lethality; it’s a new virus. That’s not gain-of-function?”

Anthony Fauci: “According to the definition that is currently operable… you know – Senator, let’s make it clear for the people who are listening.

The current definition was done over a 2-3 year period by outside bodies, including the NSABB, two conferences by the National Academy of Science, Engineering and Medicine, on December 2014, March 2016. We commissioned external risk benefit assessment, and then on January of 2017, the office of science and technology policy of the White House issued the current policy.

I have not changed any definition.”

Senator Rand Paul: “And coincidentally, coincidentally the definition appeared on the same day the NIH said that, yes, there was a gain of function in Wuhan, the same day the definition appeared – the new definition, to try to define a way what’s going on in Wuhan.

Until you accept it, until you accept responsibility, we’re not going to get anywhere close to trying to prevent another lab leak of this dangerous sort of experiment. You won’t admit that it’s dangerous, and for that lack of judgement, I think it’s time that you resign.”

Chairman Murray: “Thank you Senator Paul. And I would like, um, to give the time to Dr. Fauci.”

Anthony Fauci: “Yeah, well, there were so many things that are egregious misrepresentation here, uh, Madame Chair, that I don’t think I’d be able to refute all of them, but just a couple of them, for the listens to here for – 

You has said that I’m unwilling to take any responsibility for the current pandemic. I have no responsibility for the current pandemic. The current pandemic. Okay?

Number two, you said the overwhelming amount of evidence indicates that’s a lab leak; I believe most card-carrying viral phylogenists and molecular virologists would disagree with you, that is much more likely, even though we leave open all possibilities, it’s much more likely that this was a natural occurrence.

Third, you say we continue – “

Senator Rand Paul: “We’ve tested 80,000 animals and no animals have been found with COVID.”

Chairman Murray: “Senator Paul, the time is for Dr. Fauci to respond.”

Anthony Fauci: “And third, you made a statement just a moment ago that’s completely incorrect. Where you say we continue to support research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Senator Rand Paul: “You approved it in August of last year…”

Anthony Fauci: “No no, your statements say, quote, I wrote it down as you were writing, “You continue to support research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology – “

Senator Rand Paul: “Your committee a month ago says you still trust the Chinese scientist and you still support the research over there. You said it a month ago in the committee.”

Chairman Murray: “Senator Paul, I have allowed Dr. Fauci to respond. You’ve had your time and I’m going to give him one more minute.”

Senator Rand Paul: “If he’s going to be dishonest he ought to be challenged.”

Chairman Murray: “Senator Paul, we will allow Dr. Fauci to respond after you’ve given accusations like that. Dr. Fauci.”

Anthony Fauci: “Well I don’t have any more to say except to say that as usual, and I’ve – I have a great deal of respect for this body of the Senate and it makes me very uncomfortable to have to say something, but he is egregiously incorrect in what he says. Thank you.”

Senator Rand Paul: “History will figure that out on its own.”

While Rand Paul seems to be on the right side of history, the complete negligence and willful ignorance on the part of the Senate committee as a whole to not continuously address the many, MANY adverse events of the COVID vaccines which have harmed MILLIONS of people, according to VAERS, and who instead continue to humor the narrative that the vaccine is the end all be all, is, quite frankly, ludicrous and criminal in and of itself. While they may allude to the information about the adverse events, no steps have been taken to fully investigate and analyze the hundreds of thousands of ACTUAL DATA provided.

There is enough substantial evidence declaring that the COVID vaccines are NOT safe nor effective, yet the ruse continues to go on.

Not to mention the push now to mass vaccinate millions of children, who were never at high risk from “COVID” to begin with… it is obvious that the vaccine effort should have been halted A LONG TIME AGO.

Keep in mind that it is common knowledge that the adverse events are under-reported by a factor of only 1-10% being reported for non-serious side effects, and a speculative estimation of 10-50% being reported for serious events.

There is also the suspicious account of the FDA presentation that flashed for a brief split-second showing a list of the “possible” side effects from the COVID vaccines to be on the lookout for:

Screenshot from: [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XTiL9rUpkg ] U.S. Food and Drug Administration@2:33:40

So to continue to ignore these facts and people’s plights from the devastating effects of the vaccines and prolonging this “pandemic” and the vaccine narrative is either complete obliviousness, to put it nicely, or downright complicity.

Again, this is not to speak of everyone in the Senate individually (unless it is in fact true…), but to point out the incredibly inane decisions of those ultimately in charge of these committees and giving their final verdict which has enabled these atrocious crimes against humanity to continue.

It is my opinion that a call for Anthony Fauci to resign does not do the damage that he has caused throughout the years (including his organizations: NIH/NIAID) justice, but instead efforts to make arrests of those initiating these crimes should be pursued as well.

Moving on to the second portion (from the same hearing), we see Rochelle Walensky responding to Senator Bill Cassidy’s inquiries to address natural immunity versus vaccine-induced immunity, and also her refusal to answer uncertainty in how many CDC employees are vaccinated.

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “Dr. Walensky, couple things: as I walked in, I came in late, one of you – either you or Dr. Fauci – were saying that the reason that we’re not saying that natural immunity is protective as is a vaccine, even though there’s recent publication showing that 6-8 months out, 92% of those with natural immunity have T cells, B cells and antibodies that would be considered adequate to protect, and indeed B cell continues to climb, that we don’t have data.

Now in your response to Mr. Casey, you just mentioned that CDC has access to tens of thousands of EHRs [electronic health records]. And I’ve been told that HHS or CDC has access to patient identifiable data, as to who test positive. So I do that as a prologue.

If we don’t know that natural immunity confers protection against future infection, is because we’ve decided not to look. Because I’ve learned that there is a cohort of people that we know have been previously infected, we’ve got the bench research showing that the triad of antibodies, T cells and B cells are there, and that 92% of them are still there at 6 months out, so why don’t we – why have we not done the research showing that natural immunity confers protection against recurrent infection?”

Rochelle Walensky: “Yeah, thank you so much for allowing me to clarify this point, because I understand, I understand the question.

Um, first of all, let me just reiterate that our current stand after reviewing 96 papers in the scientific brief on this issue is that everyone who’s been previously infected should be vaccinated.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “But that’s not my question.”

Rochelle Walensky: “Right, agreed. So, so – and part of the challenge here is as you know the infection induced immunity and the biases associated with retrospectively looking at the data. Several of those papers that we reviewed for that brief have demonstrated that the kind of disease that you had at the time you had it matters.

Um, did you have disease a year and a half ago? Did you have – were you an older person? Were you – ?”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “May I stop you for a second?

We could do this prospectively, because you know who is actually, apparently I’m told, you’ve got patient identifiable data, and you would be able to say, okay, 6 months ago we’re going to start everybody infected within the last 6 months, and be able to follow their EHR, prospectively, to see this.

I mean, theoretically, CDC has the ability to do this right now.”

Rochelle Walensky: “Yet that too would have its own biases. So one of the things that we have demonstrated in the scientific brief is that asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic people, who might not present to their providers, might present to an urgent care clinic who might not be recorded in their own EHR, likely have less robust protection than those who’ve been severely affected.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “But that could be established prospectively if using the data that you have. And you could even say, if you had symptomatic infection, you don’t need to be vaccinated, we would consider you immune, you don’t have to be subjected to the mandate, but – “

Rochelle Walensky: “If we had data – if we had data that demonstrated a correlation of protection, Dr. Fauci already mentioned data that they’re working on to look at correlates of protection, not just in antibodies, but as you noted in T cell function as well. So if we were able to document a correlate of protection we absolutely could prospectively follow – “

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “But this paper that I’m reading from NIH, speaks that there is durable memory of the virus up to 8 months after infection in 95% of the people who recovered, including B cells, which continue to climb, and T cells and antibodies.

And I’m also saying you could do it clinically, because we have data that’s patient identifiable, that we could go back and look and see if they were exposed. They could be in a hot spot like Louisiana, where you know they’re being exposed, and then you would see. Not just by lab data, but empirically.

I can tell you, the American people intuitively understand this, and they feel a little bit like we’re being willfully blind to it.

I have limited time, let me just ask you something else. What percent of CDC employees are vaccinated?”

Rochelle Walensky: “We’re actively encouraging vaccination in all of our employees and doing a lot of education and outreach in order to get our agency fully vaccinated.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “And the – but the percent?”

Rochelle Walensky: “I don’t have that for you today.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “I’m told that 75… some north of 75% of CDC employees at headquarters are still working remotely. Is that correct?”

Rochelle Walensky: “Um, we are following regulations through HHS and the federal government.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “No, that’s not my question. I apologize to be rude, but – but I’m asking a very straightforward question.

I’ve been told that north of 75% of employees at CDC headquarters are working remotely. Is that correct?”

Rochelle Walensky: “Senator, I don’t actually know the number off the top of my head. So I’d have to – “

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “When you look down the hallway, are there empty desks? Are over 50% of the desk empty?”

Rochelle Walensky: “Senator, I don’t have the numbers off the top of my head. What I will tell you is that we’re working closely within HHS and the administration to follow the governmental rules for return to the workplace.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “There was a recent GAO report that shows, it was released in the last 2 weeks, that there’s been no coordinated response in the federal government to get people back into work.

Now if there’s any agency that – since we have teachers in Fulton county are back at work, that the caseload of COVID in Fulton county is about 88, at its peak it was 606, if what I’ve been told by someone who frankly kind of knows, that people in laboratories are not showing up, I have no clue how people, how laboratory workers who presumably are vaccinated, wearing PPE, would consider themselves eligible to stay at home.

I say this because, I just want to echo – we’ve got to lead by example in the federal government. If our public health agencies don’t have enough confidence in the immunization and the PPE to go back to work, fighting infectious diseases, there’s going to be a lot of undermining of a willingness to further fund public health.”

Rochelle Walensky: “We absolutely have our central labs back at work, conducting their essential research towards this response, and um, we are following the regulations and providing technical assistance and technical support to the federal government for return to work policies.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “Uh, one more thing, I had – Angus King and I had sent a letter dated February the 25th, asking about genomic surveillance. We’ve still not received a response. You reference it in your earlier remarks. Both Senator King and I would appreciate a response.”

Rochelle Walensky: “We’ll get back to you. Thank you very much.”

I can sum up Walensky’s testimony in 5 short dialogues; paraphrasing, of course:

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “Do you have data showing that natural immunity may offer better protection than vaccine immunity; and if not, then why?”

Rochelle Walensky: “I don’t have data on that at this time.”

(By the way, I want to interject here by saying that Senator Bill Cassidy is absolutely correct when he posits that the reason that they “don’t have the data” is because they deliberately did not look for it. I also want to add the shady practice of the pharmaceutical companies breaking protocol and completely getting rid of the control group after only a few weeks into the COVID vaccine trial…)

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “What percentage of CDC employees are vaccinated?”

Rochelle Walensky: “I don’t have data on that at this time.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “Are around 75% of CDC employees still working remotely from home?”

Rochelle Walensky: “I don’t have data on that at this time.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “When you go into the CDC headquarters, how much percentage of desks have no workers there?”

Rochelle Walensky: “I don’t have data on that at this time.”

Bill Cassidy: “Senator King and I asked you about “genomic sequence” back in February but have not received a response yet. We would appreciate a response.”

Rochelle Walensky: “I don’t have data on that at this time… but we’ll get back to you.”

This is the Director of the CDC, ladies and gentlemen. This is who is in charge of an organization that we are supposed to entrust our lives to in order to help get us through a “deadly pandemic”.

When she cannot say, in all honesty, that 100% of her CDC employees – who presumably have complete trust in the vaccines that she kept reiterating is the most important thing needed for our health – is fully vaccinated, while at the same time preaching that young children most definitely should get it, is EXTREMELY suspect and I am amazed at the continual indulgence of these hearings to not call out this hypocrisy for what it is. (Save for a small handful of Senators, that is.)

But at least we know that Rochelle Walensky hasn’t lied about how many of her employees have been vaccinated… yet.

Lastly, during the committee hearing, there were other Senators posing additional queries as to the questionable responses and suspicious nature of those testifying and their habits of skirting away from certain questions, which I want to mention here as well.

Senators Marshall, Burr and Moran (of the additional 3 testimonies that I watched, there may have been more with similar interests) have also raised legitimate concerns over the vaccines, mandates and debates about natural immunity versus vaccine efficacy – and was also met with a jumble of non-answers mixed with endless endorsements of the COVID vaccines.

Honestly, if I, an average American citizen, can see through their facade, then surely well-educated and seemingly experienced individuals in detecting deceit and malpractice would be able to determine the illegitimacy of these corrupt establishments and their cohorts as well.

So again I have to wonder at the incredibly unnecessary perpetuation of these fraudulent activities, instead of finally taking appropriate steps to shut down this criminal conspiracy.

To those Senators and other researchers who are genuinely seeking the truth and attempting to uncover the treasons, misconduct, and egregious scandal that has corrupted our governmental body and health/medical industries, my sincere gratitude and respect to you for standing strong and having enough integrity to stand up against these depravities.

God bless.

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 Edward Lich from Pixabay

Our Grave Concerns About the Handling of the COVID Pandemic by Governments of the Nations of the UK

Open letter from several healthcare professions to the UK government/administrators.

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Mr Boris Johnson, Prime Minister

Ms Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister for Scotland

Mr Mark Drakeford, First Minister for Wales

Mr Paul Givan, First Minister for Northern Ireland

Mr Sajid Javid, Health Secretary

Dr Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer

Dr Patrick Vallance, Chief Scientific Officer

 

22 August 2021

Dear Sirs and Madam,

Our grave concerns about the handling of the COVID pandemic by Governments of the Nations of the UK.

We write as concerned doctors, nurses, and other allied healthcare professionals with no vested interest in doing so. To the contrary, we face personal risk in relation to our employment for doing so and / or the risk of being personally “smeared” by those who inevitably will not like us speaking out.

We are taking the step of writing this public letter because it has become apparent to us that:

  • The  Government (by which we mean the UK government and three devolved governments/administrations and associated government advisors and agencies such as the CMOs, CSA, SAGE, MHRA, JCVI, Public Health services, Ofcom etc, hereinafter “you” or the “Government”) have based the handling of the COVID pandemic on flawed assumptions.
  • These have been pointed out to you by numerous individuals and organisations.
  • You have failed to engage in dialogue and show no signs of doing so. You have removed from people fundamental rights and altered the fabric of society with little debate in Parliament. No minister responsible for policy has ever appeared in a proper debate with anyone with opposing views on any mainstream media channel.
  • Despite being aware of alternative medical and scientific viewpoints you have failed to ensure an open and full discussion of the pros and cons of alternative ways of managing the pandemic.
  • The pandemic response policies implemented have caused massive, permanent and unnecessary harm to our nation, and must never be repeated.
  • Only by revealing the complete lack of widespread approval among healthcare professionals of your policies will a wider debate be demanded by the public.

In relation to the above, we wish to draw attention to the following points. Supporting references can be provided upon request.

  1. No attempt to measure the harms of lockdown policies

The evidence of disastrous effects of lockdowns on the physical and mental health of the population is there for all to see. The harms are massive, widespread, and long lasting. In particular, the psychological impact on a generation of developing children could be lifelong.

It is for this reason that lockdown policies were never part of any pandemic preparedness plans prior to 2020. In fact, they were expressly not recommended in WHO documents, even for severe respiratory viral pathogens and for that matter neither were border closures, face coverings, and testing of asymptomatic individuals. There has been such an inexplicable absence of consideration of the harms caused by lockdown policy it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that this is willful avoidance.

The introduction of such policies was never accompanied by any sort of risk/benefit analysis. As bad as that is, it is even worse that after the event when plenty of data became available by which the harms could be measured, only perfunctory attention to this aspect of pandemic planning has been afforded. Eminent professionals have repeatedly called for discourse on these health impacts in press-conferences but have been universally ignored.

What is so odd, is that the policies being pursued before mid-March 2020 (self-isolation of the ill and protection of the vulnerable, while otherwise society continued close to normality) were balanced, sensible and reflected the approach established by consensus prior to 2020. No cogent reason was given then for the abrupt change of direction from mid-March 2020 and strikingly none has been put forward at any time since.

  1. Institutional nature of COVID

It was actually clear early on from Italian data that COVID (the disease – as opposed to SARS-Cov-2 infection or exposure) was largely a disease of institutions. Care home residents comprised around half of all deaths, despite making up less than 1% of the population. Hospital infections are the major driver of transmission rates as was the case for both SARS1 and MERS. Transmission was associated with hospital contact in up to 40% of cases in the first wave in Spring 2020 and in 64% in winter 2020/2021.

Severe illness among healthy people below 70 years old did occur (as seen with flu pandemics) but was extremely rare.

Despite this, no early, aggressive and targeted measures were taken to protect care homes; to the contrary, patients were discharged without testing to homes where staff had inadequate PPE, training and information. Many unnecessary deaths were caused as a result.

Preparations for this coming winter, including ensuring sufficient capacity and preventative measures such as ventilation solutions, have not been prioritised.

  1. The exaggerated nature of the threat

Policy appears to have been directed at systematic exaggeration of the number of deaths which can be attributed to COVID. Testing was designed to find every possible ‘case’ rather than focusing on clinically diagnosed infections and the resulting exaggerated case numbers fed through to the death data with large numbers of people dying ‘with COVID’ and not ‘of COVID’ where the disease was the underlying cause of death.

The policy of publishing a daily death figure meant the figure was based entirely on the PCR test result with no input from treating clinicians. By including all deaths within a time period after a positive test, incidental deaths, with but not due to COVID, were not excluded thereby exaggerating the nature of the threat.

Moreover, in headlines reporting the number of deaths, a categorisation by age was not included. The average age of a COVID-labelled death is 81 for men and 84 for women, higher than the average life expectancy when these people were born. This is a highly relevant fact in assessing the societal impact of the pandemic. Death in old age is a natural phenomenon. It cannot be said that a disease primarily affecting the elderly is the same as one which affects all ages, and yet the government’s messaging appears designed to make the public think that everyone is at equal risk.

Doctors were asked to complete death certificates in the knowledge that the deceased’s death had already been recorded as a COVID death by the Government. Since it would be virtually impossible to find evidence categorically ruling out COVID as a contributory factor to death, once recorded as a “COVID death” by the government, it was inevitable that it would be included as a cause on the death certificate. Diagnosing the cause of death is always difficult and the reduction in post mortems will have inevitably resulted in increased inaccuracy. The fact that deaths due to non-COVID causes actually moved into a substantial deficit (compared to average) as COVID-labelled deaths rose (and this was reversed as COVID-labelled deaths fell) is striking evidence of over-attribution of deaths to COVID.

The overall all-cause mortality rate from 2015-2019 was unusually low and yet these figures have been used to compare to 2020 and 2021 mortality figures which has made the increased mortality appear unprecedented. Comparisons with data from earlier years would have demonstrated that the 2020 mortality rate was exceeded in every year prior to 2003 and is unexceptional as a result.

Even now COVID cases and deaths continue to be added to the existing total without proper rigour such that overall totals grow ever larger and exaggerate the threat. No effort has been made to count totals in each winter season separately which is standard practice for every other disease.

You have continued to adopt high-frequency advertising through publishing and broadcast media outlets to add to the impact of “fear messaging”. The cost of this has not been widely published, but government procurement websites reveal it to be immense – hundreds of millions of pounds.

The media and government rhetoric is now moving onto the idea that “Long Covid” is going to cause major morbidity in all age groups including children, without having a discussion of the normality of postviral fatigue which lasts upwards of 6 months. This adds to the public fear of the disease, encouraging vaccination amongst those who are highly unlikely to suffer any adverse effects from COVID.

  1. Active suppression of discussion of early treatment using protocols being successfully deployed elsewhere.

The harm caused by COVID and our response to it should have meant that advances in prophylaxis and therapeutics for COVID were embraced. However, evidence on successful treatments has been ignored or even actively suppressed. For example, a study in Oxford published in February 2021 demonstrated that inhaled Budesonide could reduce hospitalisations by 90% in low risk patients and a publication in April 2021 showed that recovery was faster for high risk patients too. However, this important intervention has not been promoted.

Dr. Tess Lawrie, of the Evidence Based Medical Consultancy in Bath, presented a thorough analysis of the prophylactic and therapeutic benefits of Ivermectin to the government in January 2021. More than 24 randomised trials with 3,400 people have demonstrated a 79-91% reduction in infections and a 27-81% reduction in deaths with Ivermectin.

Many doctors are understandably cautious about possible over-interpretation of the available data for the drugs mentioned above and other treatments, although it is to be noted that no such caution seems to have been applied in relation to the treatment of data around the government’s interventions (eg the effectiveness of lockdowns or masks) when used in support of the government’s agenda.

Whatever one’s view on the merits of these repurposed drugs, it is totally unacceptable that doctors who have attempted to merely open discussion about the potential benefits of early treatments for COVID have been heavily and inexplicably censored. Knowing that early treatments which could reduce the risk of requiring hospitalisation might be available would alter the entire view held by many professionals and lay people alike about the threat posed by COVID, and therefore the risk / benefit ratio for vaccination, especially in younger groups.

  1. Inappropriate and unethical use of behavioural science to generate unwarranted fear.

Propagation of a deliberate fear narrative (confirmed through publicly accessible government documentation) has been disproportionate, harmful and counterproductive. We request that it should cease forthwith.

To give just one example, the government’s face covering policies seem to have been driven by behavioural psychology advice in relation to generating a level of fear necessary for compliance with other policies. Those policies do not appear to have been driven by reason of infection control, because there is no robust evidence showing that wearing a face covering (particularly cloth or standard surgical masks) is effective against transmission of airborne respiratory pathogens such as SARS-Cov-2. Several high profile institutions and individuals are aware of this and have advocated against face coverings during this pandemic only inexplicably to reverse their advice on the basis of no scientific justification of which we are aware. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence suggesting that mask wearing can cause multiple harms, both physical and mental. This has been particularly distressing for the nation’s school children who have been encouraged by government policy and their schools to wear masks for long periods at school.

Finally, the use of face coverings is highly symbolic and thus counterproductive in making people feel safe. Prolonged wearing risks becoming an ingrained safety behaviour, actually preventing people from getting back to normal because they erroneously attribute their safety to the act of mask wearing rather than to the remote risk, for the vast majority of healthy people under 70 years old, of catching the virus and becoming seriously unwell with COVID.

  1. Misunderstanding of the ubiquitous nature of mutations of newly emergent viruses.

The mutation of any novel virus into newer strains – especially when under selection pressure from abnormal restrictions on mixing and vaccination – is normal, unavoidable and not something to be concerned about. Hundreds of thousands of mutations of the original Wuhan strain have already been identified. Chasing down every new emergent variant is counterproductive, harmful and totally unnecessary and there is no convincing evidence that any newly identified variant is any more deadly than the original strain.

Mutant strains appear simultaneously in different countries (by way of ‘convergent evolution’) and the closing of national borders in attempts to prevent variants travelling from one country to another serves no significant infection control purpose and should be abandoned.

  1. Misunderstanding of asymptomatic spread and its use to promote public compliance with restrictions.

It is well-established that asymptomatic spread has never been a major driver of a respiratory disease pandemic and we object to your constant messaging implying this, which should cease forthwith. Never before have we perverted the centuries-old practice of isolating the ill by instead isolating the healthy. Repeated mandates to healthy, asymptomatic people to self-isolate, especially school children, serves no useful purpose and has only contributed to the widespread harms of such policies. In the vast majority of cases healthy people are healthy and cannot transmit the virus and only sick people with symptoms should be isolated.

The government’s claim that one in three people could have the virus has been shown to be mutually inconsistent with the ONS data on prevalence of disease in society, and the sole effect of this messaging appears to have been to generate fear and promote compliance with government restrictions. The government’s messaging to ‘act as if you have the virus’ has also been unnecessarily fear-inducing given that healthy people are extremely unlikely to transmit the virus to others.

The PCR test, widely used to determine the existence of ‘cases’, is now indisputably acknowledged to be unable reliably to detect infectiousness. The test cannot discriminate between those in whom the presence of fragments of genetic material partially matching the virus is either incidental (perhaps because of past infection), or is representative of active infection, or is indicative of infectiousness. Yet, it has been used almost universally without qualification or clinical diagnosis to justify lockdown policies and to quarantine millions of people needlessly at enormous cost to health and well-being and to the country’s economy.

Countries that have removed community restrictions have seen no negative consequences which can be attributed to the easing. Empirical data from many countries demonstrates that the rise and fall in infections is seasonal and not due to restrictions or face coverings. The reason for reduced impact of each successive wave is that: (1) most people have some level of immunity either through prior immunity or immunity acquired through exposure; (2) as is usual with emergent new viruses, mutation of the virus towards strains causing milder disease appears to have occurred. Vaccination may also contribute to this although its durability and level of protection against variants is unclear. 

The government appears to be talking of “learning to live with COVID” while apparently practicing by stealth a “zero COVID” strategy which is futile and ultimately net-harmful.

  1. Mass testing of healthy children

Repeated testing of children to find asymptomatic cases who are unlikely to spread virus, and treating them like some sort of biohazard is harmful, serves no public health purpose and must stop.

During Easter term, an amount equivalent to the cost of building one District General Hospital was spent weekly on testing schoolchildren to find a few thousand positive ‘cases’, none of which was serious as far as we are aware.

Lockdowns are in fact a far greater contributor to child health problems, with record levels of mental illness and soaring levels of non-COVID infections being seen, which some experts consider to be a result of distancing resulting in deconditioning of the immune system.

  1. Vaccination of the entire adult population should never have been a prerequisite for ending restrictions.

Based merely on early “promising” vaccine data, it is clear that the Government decided in summer 2020 to pursue a policy of viral suppression within the entire population until vaccination was available (which was initially stated to be for the vulnerable only, then later changed – without proper debate or rigorous analysis – to the entire adult population).

This decision was taken despite massive harms consequent to continued lockdowns which were either known to you or ought to have been ascertained so as to be considered in the decision making process.

Moreover, a number of principles of good medical practice and previously unimpeachable ethical standards have been breached in relation to the vaccination campaign, meaning that in most cases, whether the consent obtained can be truly regarded as “fully informed” must be in serious doubt:

  • The use of coercion supported by an unprecedented media campaign to persuade the public to be vaccinated, including threats of discrimination, either supported by the law or encouraged socially, for example in co-operation with social media platforms and dating apps.
  • The omission of information permitting individuals to make a fully informed choice, especially in relation to the experimental nature of the vaccine agents, extremely low background COVID risk for most people, known occurrence of short-term side-effects and unknown long-term effects.

Finally, we note that the Government is seriously considering the possibility that these vaccines – which have no associated long-term safety data – could be administered to children on the basis that this might provide some degree of protection to adults. We find that notion an appalling and unethical inversion of the long-accepted duty falling on adults to protect children.

  1. Over-reliance on modeling while ignoring real-world data

Throughout the pandemic, decisions seem to have been taken utilising unvalidated models produced by groups who have what can only be described as a woeful track record, massively overestimating the impact of several previous pandemics.

The decision-making teams appear to have very little clinical input and, as far as is ascertainable, no clinical immunology expertise.

Moreover, the assumptions underlying the modeling have never been adjusted to take into account real-world observations in the UK and other countries.

It is an astonishing admission that, when asked whether collateral harms had been considered by SAGE, the answer given was that it was not in their remit – they were simply asked to minimise COVID impact. That might be forgivable if some other advisory group was constantly studying the harms side of the ledger, yet this seems not to have been the case.

Conclusions

The UK’s approach to COVID has palpably failed. In the apparent desire to protect one vulnerable group – the elderly – the implemented policies have caused widespread collateral and disproportionate harm to many other vulnerable groups, especially children. Moreover your policies have failed in any event to prevent the UK from notching up one of the highest reported death rates from COVID in the world.

Now, despite very high vaccination rates and the currently very low COVID death and hospitalisation rates, policy continues to be aimed at maintaining a population handicapped by extreme fear with restrictions on everyday life prolonging and deepening the policy-derived harms. To give just one example, NHS waiting lists now stand at 5.1m officially, with – according to the previous Health Secretary – a likely further 7m who will require treatment not yet presented. This is unacceptable and must be addressed urgently.

In short, there needs to be a sea change within the Government which must now pay proper attention to those esteemed experts outside its inner circle who are sounding these alarms. As those involved with healthcare, we are committed to our oath to “first do no harm”, and we can no longer stand by in silence observing policies which have imposed a series of supposed “cures” which are in fact far worse than the disease they are supposed to address.

The signatories of this letter call on you, in Government, without further delay to widen the debate over policy, consult openly with groups of scientists, doctors, psychologists and others who share crucial, scientifically-valid and evidence-based alternative views and to do everything in your power to return the country as rapidly as possible to normality with the minimum of further damage to society.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Jonathan Engler, MB ChB LLB (Hons) DipPharmMed

Professor John A Fairclough, BM BS B Med Sci FRCS FFSEM,  Consultant Surgeon, ran vaccination program for a Polio Outbreak, Past President BOSTA, for Orthopaedic Surgeons, Faculty member FFSEM

Mr Tony Hinton, MB ChB, FRCS, FRCS(Oto), Consultant Surgeon

Dr Renee Hoenderkamp, BSc (Hons) MBBS MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Ros Jones, MBBS, MD, FRCPCH, retired consultant paediatrician

Mr Malcolm Loudon, MB ChB MD FRCSEd FRCS (Gen Surg) MIHM VR

Dr Geoffrey Maidment, MBBS, MD, FRCP, retired consultant physician

Dr Alan Mordue, MB ChB, FFPH (ret), Retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine

Mr Colin Natali, BSc(Hons), MBBS FRCS FRCS(Orth), Consultant Spine Surgeon

Dr Helen Westwood, MBChB MRCGP DCH DRCOG, General Practitioner

Click here for the complete list of signatories and if you wish to add your name to the letter.

*

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.

Featured image: Prime Minister Boris Johnson during a press conference on 16 March, with Chief Medical Officer Prof Chris Witty and Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance. Picture by Andrew Parsons

Hawaiian Whistleblower Claims of Massive Corruption Inside COVID/Nursing Units | “I’ve seen more people pass away from the vaccine than I have on COVID units.”

Faulty PCR tests, mislabeling COVID, and withholding treatment.

With so much uncertainty and censorship going on currently, especially with the COVID/vaccine narrative, it’s incredibly important to allow people’s experiences to be heard. What some may be dealing with in one arena, may not fully encompass what everyone else is going through. Yet the obvious and intrusive manipulation of suppressing people’s testimonies and first-hand accounts has reached an alarming height.

Those who engage themselves in social media and the tech platforms, such as youtube, twitter, facebook, instagram, etc. may find that certain information they’re trying to share is deleted, or shadow-banned, and/or their whole account targeted for “misinformation”.

It’s during these times that it’s more crucial than ever to spread awareness and let these people’s voices be heard.

Mr. Abrien Aguirre shares his experiences and what he sees as what can only be described as malfeasance and misconduct going on at the nursing facility that he works at. I would be willing to bet that he’s not the only one who sees all this corruption. But it takes honesty and compassion to break the silence and admit the truth, even at the risk of one’s career to go against the status quo.

The below video is a transcript of the incredibly important information that Abrien Aguirre shares with an HFSN reporter. Thank you to both HFSN and Mr. Aguirre for bringing this to attention.

All text below is from Abrien Aguirre unless otherwise stated. Some embellishment has been added for emphasis.

Source: bitchute | Hawaii Free Speech News | Abrien Aguirre Hawaii Covid Whistleblower

“My name is Abrien Aguirre, and I’m a board certified, occupational therapy practitioner. And I’m here because I have experience on COVID units. I’ve worked on 3 COVID units, 2 isolation COVID unit, and 1 step down unit. And um, so I’ve witnessed a lot of what I guess the media’s been talking about. And I see how they misrepresented the truth on COVID. The truth on the testing.

For instance, at my facility, I work at the biggest skilled nursing facility here in Oahu, and I work with the geriatric population. The people that were moved to the COVID unit, didn’t have COVID. They tested positive with the PCR test, but most of them were asymptomatic and only suffering from their preexisting conditions. None of them had exacerbated symptoms. Most of them weren’t sick, other than what they were already dealing with. End stage renal failure, diabetes, COPD, congestive heart failure, things of that nature.

I also saw how some of the hospice patients that were moved to the COVID unit, that died of terminal illness were actually put on the COVID death list. Which is complete fraud. And facilities were facilitating this, and doing this the whole time.

More people survived and had no issues and were asymptomatic that were well into their 80’s and 90’s, then that passed away. My entire experience on these COVID units, I think there were… 12 deaths? And none of those deaths could fully be attributed to COVID. It was all preexisting conditions or terminal illness.

Since the rollout of the vaccine, at my facility, Moderna was the vaccine that they administered, I’ve seen 32 elderly people pass away immediately after taking the Moderna vaccine.

None of that is being talked about on the news. None of that is being spoken about, you know, on the media. It doesn’t fit their narrative. I’ve seen more people pass away from the vaccine than I have on COVID units; which is really weird. Seeing that, supposedly we have really high COVID case numbers.

A lot of the patients that I treat are suffering from stroke, and heart attack, hip replacement, knee replacement, things of that nature. So when these people get admitted to the hospital, they have to take a PCR test first. So someone experiencing a heart attack will be picked up by the ambulance, taken to the hospital, the hospital will administer the PCR test; if the PCR test comes back positive, they admit this patient as a COVID patient. They don’t admit them as a heart attack patient. They don’t admit them for myocardial infarction. That’s kind of weird.

I’ve had stroke patients that I’ve treated that were admitted to – or taken to the hospital for stroke but when they get there, PCR test says ‘positive’ so they’re labeled as a COVID admission. Even though when they were there they were never treated for COVID, they were asymptomatic, and they were only treated for their stroke.

So there’s just this huge misrepresentation. Just a complete fraud with this system, with the healthcare system. I worked as a director of rehab for 5 months at another skilled nursing facility here in Kalihi, on Oahu, and at that facility, during my time as being the director of rehab, I’ve seen where the billing department would have my therapist change the ICD-10 medical diagnosis billing code from a pulmonary disorder or COPD, to COVID. Because of higher reimbursement.

Now these people were asymptomatic, some of them may have had a positive PCR, and some of them didn’t have a positive PCR test. But we were still forced to change those ICD-10 diagnosis codes to a COVID code because we get higher reimbursement for those patients.

So it’s just fraud on every level. Just higher reimbursement at medical facilities for someone that’s labeled COVID, whether you treat them for COVID or not. You’re gonna get higher reimbursement. I know this for a fact.

Reporter @4:16: “There’s an ambulance coming, right now.”

Abrien Aguirre: “Oh yeah, so that person, whatever they’re experiencing as soon as they get there, they’re not going to be allowed to be triaged, or admitted, until they have PCR. And if that PCR comes back positive, that person, if they’re having a heart attack, a cerebral vascular accident, anything, it’s going to immediately be labeled COVID instead of what they’re truly experiencing. Absolutely. Yep.

I, I’ve treated patients with heart attack that told me, “Yeah! I had a heart attack. My neighbor found me. They called the ambulance, the ambulance picked me up, resuscitated me, brought me back to life. I went to the hospital; the hospital wouldn’t admit me until I had a PCR test, the PCR test came back positive. I was no longer considered ‘heart attack’ or ‘myocardial infarction’. I was considered “COVID” from that point on.”

Even though they were never treated for COVID, never administered any therapeutics for COVID; treated for their heart attack, sent to our facilities so we can rehab them for those, you know, the weakness and stuff caused by their heart attack. But on our, when they come in, on our medical history, we see them as a COVID admission.

So it’s, it’s just weird fraud on every level, man. And that’s how we’re getting these spike numbers in COVID. Is because, heart attack: “COVID”. Cerebral vascular accident/stroke? You know, bleed in the brain: “COVID”. Like, everything’s coming back COVID. Broken hip/positive PCR: “COVID”.

@5:51: So the funny thing is, I’ve reached out to these politicians. I’ve reached out to Ige, I’ve reached out to Governor Josh Green, I’ve reached out to Rick Blangiardi. I’ve e-mailed, I’ve messaged these people letting them know what’s going on, and it’s silence. None of them get back to me. None of them correspond with me whatsoever. I hear no feedback from them.

I’ve talked to Rick Blangiardi, and Governor Ige – or, I messaged them, and I messaged Josh Green about the hospice patients that were terminally ill that were labeled as COVID deaths; no one’s ever gotten back to me about it. No one’s ever investigated this.

When I worked on the COVID unit, you know who ran the COVID unit? There was no infectious disease nurse. There was no infectious disease doctor. There was no representative from the DOH, Department of Health, that met with us to tell us what the protocol was. It was two certified nurse assistants, two therapists, a physical therapist/occupational therapist, and a registered nurse. That’s who ran the COVID department at Oahu’s biggest skilled nursing facility with the geriatric patients.

I never corresponded or met with Governor, Lieutenant Governor Josh Green. He never assessed the situation. That’s very weird. Why wouldn’t you assess this situation? With this deadly virus? We had no representative from the DOH come down and speak with us. There was no protocol, other than “Move these patients to the COVID unit, isolate them for 14 days. Some of them will make it, some of them won’t.”

Treatment was withheld. They weren’t given treatment. Because they had a positive PCR test, if a person had pneumonia or a flu, there’s this thing called ‘off-labeling’. They’re no longer allowed to be treated for flu or pneumonia. So they weren’t given any antivirals and they weren’t given any antibiotics. Which would normally fight those things. They were moved to a unit, they were told there was no treatment for them; whoever made it, made it – whoever didn’t, you know, didn’t.”

@7:53: “- they are testing us. This one’s from August 25, 2020. Right here, it even states on the printout, it says, “A positive result does not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses.The rt-PCR test can’t differentiate between any viruses. It’s in the fine print! In the printout of the rt-PCR test. The inventor of the PCR test admitted that it won’t differentiate between any viruses. Recently, the CDC has even admitted that the rt-PCR test doesn’t differentiate between viruses.

So you have three sources stating that it doesn’t differentiate between viruses. Yet, yet that’s the test we’re using for this case count. That’s the, that’s the test that we’re using; it’s a faulty test. And that’s the one that Governor Green, and all these medical facilities, and it’s my facilities too that I work at, are using to claim these, these COVID statistics. That’s just false. It’s false. It’s a faulty test, it doesn’t differentiate between anything, yet that’s the gold standard right now. And it’s sad. Because there’s so many false positives. There’s so many people that are asymptomatic because it doesn’t differentiate between anything.

@9:09: This is just an infringement on our medical freedom. This is an infringement on our kupuna’s [grandparent/elder/senior citizen] health. I mean, no one’s looking after the health of our kupuna. You know? I’ve seen more death come from the vaccine. 32 kupuna, immediately after taking the Moderna shot, either the 1st or 2nd shot, pass away from this. So who’s looking out for their care?

The people that try to speak up and look out for their care? It falls on deaf ears. No one – no one corresponds back with us. No one wants to hear it cause it doesn’t fit the current narrative. It’s horrible. And I think it’s just going to continue to get worse.

You know, my advice to people, I work in a skilled nursing facility and my advice to people is, if your kupuna are sick, if your elderly are sick, your grandmother, your great-grandmother, your mom, don’t send them to a skilled nursing facility. They’re not going to receive adequate care. Treatment is going to be withheld from them. They’re going to be forced to wear a mask all day. And social distance. They’re going to become depressed and want to commit suicide, because that’s what I’m seeing in our facilities. That’s what’s been going on.”

Reporter: “Thank you so much.”

Abrien Aguirre: “You’re welcome, bro. You’re welcome.”

For more information on treatment, there are many doctors who vouch for the Ivermectin/nutraceutical bundle that may be beneficial in treating these respiratory issues. I am not a doctor, but would encourage more research on this as a possibility to help. One thing that I will say, while the FDA has approved Remdesivir as a treatment for COVID, I would HIGHLY encourage one to do research on this drug (and organization) as well before choosing this as a course…

As it stands currently, the FDA has been accused several times of engaging in corrupt practices, accepting bribes from drug companies, and approving drugs that do more harm than good.

CORRUPTION IN THE FDA
An FDA Whistleblower’s Documents: Commerce, Corruption, and Death

Another notice, seeing as how accurate information is highly suppressed, while only one side of the narrative is highly endorsed, I would suggest using this as a guideline in determining what may be “actual misinformation”, as opposed to “information they don’t want you to see”. Yet with any level of research, discernment and critical thinking is needed, so please keep this in mind.

With that being said, I don’t want to derail the topic too much, I appreciate Abrien Aguirre and the HFSN (Hawaii Free Speech News) for sharing his experience, but also wanted to point out the unnecessary and unhelpful judgements that some people make to try and delegitimize some people’s accounts because of their credentials, or some other strawman excuse to refute credibility.

For instance, because Abrien Aguirre doesn’t work in “infectious diseases” or isn’t a PhD medical doctor, some people will use that as an excuse to automatically dismiss this man’s claims.

However, one of the top leading voices in this whole “pandemic” drive is that of Bill Gates. And what are his credentials? …Well… he’s a college dropout, accused of stealing software tech, and, according to wikipedia: William Henry Gates III is an American business magnate, software developer, investor, author, and philanthropist. He is a co-founder of Microsoft Corporation, along with his late childhood friend Paul Allen.”

So why would these credentials make Bill Gates one of the biggest spokespersons for a mandatory vaccine?

Oh, I forgot to mention his dad, William Gates Sr. – who was head of Planned Parenthood – which is a company born from a history of eugenics and whose founder, Margaret Sanger, specifically aimed for taking out the black population and those deemed “unfit”.

But I’m sure that’s all just a misunderstanding and even though Mr. Bill Gates himself has talked about reducing the population, obviously he doesn’t really mean it that way, right? I mean, that’s just ridiculous. …

And while Abrien Aguirre has been taking care of hospital patients and seeing all of the corruption going on within, where has Bill Gates been? Has he been taking care of patients one on one? Has he been directly in the hospitals, seeing patients being shuffled back and forth; who are being sent in for heart attacks/stroke/leg surgery/kidney stones/etc., etc., etc. yet being labeled as a COVID specific patient if the PCR tests (which are fraudulent to begin with) come back positive? Has he seen the malfeasance and manipulation of data just to get higher reimbursement from the government?

(Oh wait. Who am I kidding? He’s well aware of all the corruption going on, because he’s a key part of it.)

Or has he been in another simulation event planning out the next big cyber/biologic attack? Or meeting with all of his billionaire friends to laugh about the gullible and foolish human beings that believe he’s doing all of this out of the kindness of his heart and that he truly, honestly cares about us all – or perhaps he’s discussing more “philanthropic” ventures that just so happen to make him and his cohorts even richer?

Maybe he’s been hiding in his bunker, hoping that more and more people will take this deadly vaccine so that he can roam free after the chaos dies down. Perhaps he’s working on finalizing his divorce and trying to shut down “rumors” about his connection with Jeffrey Epstein… Going on more news channels to declare that these vaccines are the holy grail and that everyone and their dog needs to get it…

So once again I have to bring up, why would Bill Gates’ words be more credible in relation to this vaccine push, than someone who has firsthand account and eye-witness testimony? Why are the people who are experiencing the horrors of vaccine side effects/deaths in person being silenced and ignored in the media, while a “tech mogul” is plastered all over the news?

My best common sense guess: $$$

I apologize. I derailed quite a bit.

Thank you again to Abrien Aguirre, HFSN, and everyone else who has been speaking out about the corruption going on with this narrative. Yours is the voice that needs to be heard, and I appreciate your courage and integrity to do so. God bless.