The Beast Now Rules Australia!!, 3763

https://bit.ly/BillsLinksShow more

Good afternoon, I’m still reporting on poor Australia.

I would have never guessed that Australians would be the first nation to totally succumb to the system of the Beast being experimented with by the minions of Satan, worldwide.

Aussies seemed to have all of the free spiritedness of the American wild west in the late 1800s. That’s why it’s shocking that they fell before the U.S. did. But perhaps the MOS knew that the U.S. and Australia had to be the first targets in their global attack - the most likely to resist authoritarianism.

Their low-intensity warfare strategy was to - as gently as possible – go for the head of the snake. But apparently the difference was that the general population in the U.S. was far more prepared for just such an attack and were able to resist it from its beginning – and gradually gathered steam at a rate that the bad guys could not surpass. Oh, one other thing in 1996, most Aussies gave up their guns.

Following several high-profile killing sprees, the federal and state governments of Australia mostly aligned their gun laws in something called the National Firearms Agreement. This was followed by two federally funded gun buybacks and other voluntary surrenders. More than a million firearms, thought to be a third of the national stock, were surrendered.

Now, a person must have a firearm license to possess or use a firearm. License holders must demonstrate a “genuine reason” for holding a license, which does not include self-defense.

The result? You think Joe Biden governance is bad? You ain’t seen nothing yet!

I’ve got a friend in Australia who went shopping this morning at the local grocery store and this is what she saw when she walked in. She wrote:

“Crazy world - just went up to the local store and had a huge shock. FOOD is gone. Things are getting pretty real here.”

Then, she sent along this lovely little piece of video with the following written explanation from a cafe owner.

"This is Australia now people. Such a sad day when 5 disgusting individuals in police uniform come to my cafe, interrogate me as to whether I'm allowing unvaxxed people dine at my establishment.

“This Lady peacefully left the cafe when the police entered and waited outside. It wasn't until the police finished checking all patrons that all 5 focused on her and insisted she show her vaccination status. She politely said she would provide her name and address but declines sharing her medical records.

“They pushed and pushed to try get her to hand over her phone and when she refused, they said she is under arrest. We asked for what? There is nothing in the mandate that says you can be arrested for not showing your status.”

“So disgusted and embarrassed to be Australian right now. Would have loved 5 police when we got broken into four times. Truly heart broken, mad and disgusted.

I’m still reporting from the citadel of world freedom. Good Day.

The 21st century has so far been a reputational disaster for western medicine because it has allowed itself to become tainted by non-scientific, political forces and industry money to maximize their financial gain.

These deceitful practices have been widely protected by the mainstream media as well as the social media giants – all part of the new system of the Beast.

It is now estimated that these malpractices have cost hundreds of thousands unnecessary deaths in the U.S. alone, and millions of undocumented, long-term adverse reactions to a treatment regimen that was at best deeply flawed. Medicine’s departure from adherence to scientific tenets is now coming under intense scrutiny by scientists outside the medical world, and their critical conclusions will continue to unfold for many years.

A new report is the first broad-based look across the entire spectrum of the medical malfeasance that has shaped the treatment of COVID-19. This information can no longer be suppressed, and these conclusions will be viewed in the eyes of medical history as the facts, and eventually those responsible for this betrayal of the public interest will be held accountable.

But the most important thing to be achieved in the present is putting an end to the to the killing and the entities that are perpetuating it.

The new study is reported in yesterday’s edition of TrialSite News.

The authors draw an important distinction between Medicine and medical professionals, and something called the Medical Establishment – the folks who are supposed to draw guidelines and ensure that Medicine and medical professionals adhere to scientific tenets and operate in the public interest.

Obviously, they have not.

The report was prepared by non-medical scientists because they can not only hold the medicine in general at arms length to examine its practices, they are free from the professional oversight of the Medical Establishment and their ability to destroy professional reputations, certifications and livelihoods, something that sadly, has happened all too frequently during the COVID outbreak.

There are two bottom-line conclusions which thankfully are placed in the first page of this new study:

The Medical Establishment – the WHO, CDC, FDA and even the AMA – have not acted in the best interest of the public, and

Their actions are inconsistent with genuine Science.

The report in general urges the Medical Establishment to return to the scientific method, and divorce real science from political science.

What is the scientific method?
The most important element is skepticism. A question or observation kicks off the process, followed by research in the topic area, then a hypothesis is drawn and subsequently tested with an experiment. The results are analyzed and conclusions drawn from the resulting data.

However, this traditional pattern of medical research has been badly broken time and time again so that conclusions supporting certain political goals are the only ones that are promulgated by the Medical Establishment on the topic of COVID. Studies have been mounted to reach pre-determined conclusions. Other studies have been suddenly withdrawn if they show bad results for patent medicines, or good results for legacy medications or nutriceuticals. This is totally outside the framework of the search for truth.

According to the study:

“Unfortunately it is yet another chapter in the global fight between real Science and political science. This conflict is now going on in multiple fronts (e.g. energy, climate, education, etc.).”

“Although our primary defense against almost any disease is our immune system, there has been almost no public education or emphasis about this by the Medical Establishment.

“The general COVID-19 rules and recommendations from the Medical Establishment have been illogical, inconsistent and/or harmful.
Masks are a good example. To begin with, just requiring an unspecified standard “mask” is scientifically worthless, as most masks are ineffective. Studies have also concluded that masks can cause health issues.”

“COVID-19 data from (or supported by) the Medical Establishment, have been incomplete to purposefully deceptive. [This includes data about COVID-19 injections.]

“For example, the data on COVID-19 deaths fail to distinguish between dying from COVID-19 vs. dying with COVID-19. (Per the CDC: 95%± of US COVID-19 deaths had an average of four (4) co-morbidities!) This results in highly inflated COVID-19 death figures, which allows government officials to justify enacting shutdowns, etc.

“Further, there is no Medical Establishment data accounting for deaths from the government COVID-19 regulations (e.g., hospitalizations, increase in other medical issues (e.g., like Alzheimer’s, suicides, drug overdose deaths, murders, etc.).

Then, the report goes into the area of lack of interest in inexpensive, yet effective treatments for COVID.

“Inexplicably, to date the Medical Establishment has yet to support some well-documented effective COVID-19 therapies…. Even over-the-counter (OTC) items like Zinc and Vitamin D have been scientifically shown to have measurable benefits. (Combining them would likely result in even better outcomes.)

“Conversely, the Medical Establishment has endorsed a therapy (Remdesivir) that has scientifically been shown to be less effective than several other options, including taking OTCs like Zinc or Vitamin D!

“Further, their “therapy” only begins when the disease requires hospitalization…. The lack of a sound, timely and uniform COVID-19 therapy, has likely been the cause of some 400,000 avoidable American deaths!”

By the way, all of these assertions are replete with clickable links to associated study citations. The non-medical scientists continue:

“The Medical Establishment has allowed the PCR test to be used to determine whether or not an individual (e.g., a deceased person) has COVID-19 — while the inventor said that this was a “useless” application of his test. Additionally, the Medical Establishment has changed the rules as time has gone on.”

Yet still today, every day, every hour of the day, the MSM continues to ignore this fact and continues to report the number of cases. Cases are based solely on the PCR test and are likely wildly over-reported.

The report then criticizes the Medical Establishment’s lack of reliance upon the human immune system.

“One other fascinating medical matter that the COVID-19 issue has re-unearthed, is the differences in perspective between Western and Eastern medical viewpoints.

“The Western perspective is that we address medical issues (e.g. COVID-19) by identifying specific medical modalities (problems). After that, doctors then proceed to specific preventives (e.g. a vaccine), and specific cures (e.g. a physician prescribed medicine). Note that none of this specifically deals with our immune system.

“It should be apparent that CDC’s recommendations come from this Western view... (BTW a lot of this perspective is driven by pharmaceutical companies, who are in the business of providing both vaccines and cures.)

“The Eastern perspective is much more holistic. Their position is: if you are in overall good health, your body will automatically take care of most attacks on itself. Therefore, when faced with a medical issue, an Eastern physician doesn’t need to know the specific problem, or its cause. The initial strategy is: to get your body in optimum health.

“Pharmaceutical companies appear not to favor this perspective, [because it] is not consistent with them selling potential therapeutics and treatments — which is a significant portion of their business.

“So far there is little evidence that the Medical Establishment has learned anything from the Eastern health perspective. The scientific view is that there is merit to both approaches, so optimum health would come from combining the best of each.”

Here is what the study has to say about the vaccination issue.

A hot topic of debate among scientists is the COVID-19 injection: pro or con. The shot supporters asked the skeptics for the evidence they have against it. On the surface that is a reasonable request, as we scientists should be driven by facts, not by emotion, rumors, etc.
So, let’s consider the following COVID-19 facts:
1 - There are actually four distinctly different types of COVID-19 injections. Each is based on
different studies, has different modalities, different side-effects, different effectiveness, a different duration for being effective, etc. Has the public been well-informed about these options? No — which is scientifically and ethically unacceptable. To keep it simple, the comments in this report will focus on the mRNA version, the most popular option.
2 - The mRNA injection is not a conventional vaccination from several perspectives (see here and here). Calling this injection a “vaccine” is like saying "clean energy" or "wind farm" — which are deceptive and inaccurate marketing (political science) terms. [Note: The CDC’s page on Vaccines does not even list mRNA as an option!]
The mRNA (Messenger RNA) COVID-19 injection has significantly fewer clinical studies done (one year development vs 10-15 years for a traditional vaccine), due to Emergency Use Authorization (e.g., few studies about reactions to other drugs a patient may be taking; premature ending of animal studies as too many animals died, etc.), problematic chemicals (e.g. PEG) in the injections, the bio-mechanics of how the injected material works, data monitoring of results, etc. To be scientifically accurate, we are actually discussing an experimental COVID-19 bio-chemical injection, not a traditional "vaccine."

Most Scientists expressing concern about the COVID-19 bio- chemical injection are not "anti-vaxxers" any more than Scientists expressing concern about unproven climate claims are "deniers." Words are important in these discussions.

3 - The COVID-19 injection data are in the hands of (i.e., is controlled by) the Medical Establishment. Regarding COVID-19, these groups have already proven themselves to be scientifically irresponsible — i.e. promoters of political science.

As just one of many examples, they are cooking the books regarding the COVID-19 death rate by combining those who died with COVID-19, with those that died from COVID-19. Even the CDC acknowledges that 95%± of those who are identified as COVID deaths, had four co-morbidities! (This is similar to how NOAA, etc. have adjusted temperature data to adhere to the climate narrative.) As a result, the official COVID-19 data (evidence) are simply not trustworthy.

4 - But it's worse than that. There are Medical Establishment insiders who claim that the actual data indicates that the COVID-19 bio-chemical injection has caused significant problems — e.g., 50,000± US deaths and here. Also, this Harvard study concluded that (typically) only 1% of adverse outcomes are reported to the voluntary VAERS data system!

So, for two (2) different reasons we do not know the actual numbers of fatalities, etc. and may never. In other words, it is quite reasonable to question the reported number of fatalities, etc. of the COVID-19 bio-chemical injection.

5 - The COVID-19 bio-chemical injection has been authorized as an "emergency use" (EUA). The federal rules are that an emergency use cannot be granted if there are effective therapies for the situation at hand (“no adequate, approved, and available alternatives”).

As scientists we know that there are (and have been) effective therapies for COVID-19 (e.g., here). Again, the Medical Establishment has dishonestly claimed otherwise. This does not instill confidence in any of their assertions about the COVID-19 bio-chemical injection.

6 - The possible negative consequences of a COVID-19 bio-chemical injection are far-reaching, and many may not be apparent for years. This study identifies eighteen (18!) medical conditions that can lead to adverse COVID-19 injection outcomes, including death. This study says: “no one actually has any idea of medium- and long-term effects of COVID-19 vaccines.” Who is looking for these, and who will report them? The injection proponents: the Medical Establishment!

One documented, yet rarely discussed, very problematic adverse consequence of getting the COVID-19 bio-chemical injection, can be Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE), or Vaccine Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED). This serious side effects can worsen later infections from other COVID-19 variants. (In other words the extent of ADE/VAED won’t be known for some time.) That’s a major concern expressed by the physician who is reportedly an inventor of the mRNA injection.

Other scientists have come to similar conclusions. This study bluntly says: "The risk of ADE in COVID-19 vaccines is non-theoretical and compelling." They go on to say that medical ethics requires that this serious risk be "prominently disclosed" to all injection recipients, as part of full disclosure (prior to such persons being injected).

8 - The Medical Establishment is justifying the illegal Emergency Use, clinical test shortcuts, the injection's side effects, and the injection's fatalities, by asserting that these are necessary trade-offs to save many lives. But is that yet another of their dishonest, unscientific claims?

The fact is that we have no scientific data to show:
a) how many lives each of the four COVID-19 injections are taking, or
b) how many lives each of the four COVID-19 injections are saving, or
c) how many lives that the COVID-19 injections are saving, could have also been saved by proper COVID-19 therapy with lower side effects.

9 - The COVID-19 bio-chemical injection provides only a fraction of the true level of protection required. It's like providing antibiotics at half the dose required to stop the spread of bacteria. This study concludes that: Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens. And two shots doesn’t seem to improve things that much.

10-Over 4000 variants of COVID-19 have now been identified! Only a tiny portion of them have been tested against the four injection options available.
To convey that there are only a few important COVID-19 variants (like “delta”) and/or that current COVID-19 bio-chemical injections will provide full protection against these 4000 variants, are irresponsible assertions, not supported by Science.

A far better public health solution would be official acceptance of wide-spectrum therapies, combined with assuring that citizens have a healthy immune system. Neither of those are what the Medical Establishment is communicating, and the apparent reason is that there is much more profit to be made by injections.

11-The statement that “the COVID-19 vaccine is effective” is frequently used to assure citizens. What this means hinges on the definition of what is considered “effective,” and that is almost never clearly explained. Additionally, efficacy is medically defined differently than effectiveness.

To further muddy the water the AMA says: “You really can’t compare vaccines with different effectiveness. It’s like comparing apples to oranges.” Lastly, some COVID-19 vaccine figures are relative not absolute (see this study), and that is not explained.

When told that “the COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective,” to be more informed citizens should ask the following questions as a minimum:

a) Do you have clinical and empirical data that concludes that all four very different COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective?

b) Exactly what about the COVID-19 vaccines does the clinical data say are safe and effective? [Note: Prevention of getting COVID-19? Stopping transmission of COVID-19? Protection against all COVID-19 variants?
The answer to all of these is NO.]

c) Based on the clinical and empirical data you have, the COVID-19 vaccines are “safe and effective” compared to what?

[Note: an ideal comparison would be to a scientifically supported therapy, e.g. Ivermectin + Zinc + Vitamin D. There is no clinical data comparing COVID-19 vaccines to that therapy.]

d) Is the empirical data you are referring to objective and accurate?
[Note: CDC death rates and VAERS data are provably neither.

The Medical Establishment’s COVID-19 injection regulations, have been in conflict with their claims of its effectiveness and their adherence to real Science.
For example, if the COVID-19 injections are as effective as claimed, then why would there be requirements for (ineffective) masks for those who have been injected? For example, there is little (if any) scientific basis to give an injection to a person who already has had COVID-19.

13-Per this study, and this short video by a pro-vaccine MD, the Medical Establishment is at least partly to blame for COVID-19 injections being given incorrectly — which can result in serious adverse health consequences.

14-The Medical Establishment stood by while COVID-19 bio-chemical injection manufacturers were granted legal immunity, even if they knowingly market a worthless or harmful injection!

Pressured by pharmaceutical lobbyists, Congress chose (via the Prep Act) to protect the interests of injection manufacturers, rather than protect the public’s right to safety, or to provide the public with legal recourse against malfeasance or incompetence by large pharmaceutical companies. Why would the Medical Establishment support that?

15-We are fully supportive of the rights of citizens to make their own choice in such matters. If informed citizens freely choose to try the experimental COVID-19 bio-chemical injection, we have no problem with them making that choice. Likewise, informed citizens who choose otherwise would expect to have their choice to be similarly respected. For more information about medical informed consent, see the Nuremberg Code.

16-One argument made against citizens choosing against a COVID-19 injection, is that they don't have a right to infect other citizens with COVID-19. Some flaws with this thinking:
a) If the COVID-19 bio-chemical injection is as effective as its supporters claim, the risk of infection for injection recipients is minuscule.
b) It has been documented that recipients of the COVID-19 bio-
chemical injection can also be COVID-19 carriers and spreaders, just as much as the unvaccinated are, so what's the difference?
c) If non-injection parties only infect other non-injection parties, that is the risk those parties have freely chosen to make. Why should the government be able to over-ride citizens' informed free choice?

9 - The COVID-19 bio-chemical injection provides only a fraction of the true level of protection required. It's like providing antibiotics at half the dose required to stop the spread of bacteria. This study concludes that: Imperfect Vaccina4on Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens. And two shots doesn’t seem to improve things that much.

10-Over 4000 variants of COVID-19 have now been identified! Only a tiny portion of them have been tested against the four injection options available.
To convey that there are only a few important COVID-19 variants (like “delta”) and/or that current COVID-19 bio-chemical injections will provide full protection against these 4000 variants, are irresponsible assertions, not supported by Science.

A far better public health solution would be official acceptance of wide-spectrum therapies, combined with assuring that citizens have a healthy immune system. Neither of those are what the Medical Establishment is communicating, and the apparent reason is that there is much more profit to be made by injections.

11-The statement that “the COVID-19 vaccine is effective” is frequently used to assure citizens. What this means hinges on the definition of what is considered “effective,” and that is almost never clearly explained. Additionally, efficacy is medically defined differently than effec4veness. To further muddy the water the AMA says: “You really can’t compare vaccines with different effectiveness. It’s like comparing apples to oranges.” Lastly, some COVID-19 vaccine figures are rela4ve not absolute (see this study), and that is not explained.
When told that “the COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective,” to be more informed citizens should ask the following questions as a minimum:

Do you have clinical and empirical data that concludes that all four very different COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective? (This study brings that into question.)

Exactly what about the COVID-19 vaccines does the clinical data say are safe and effective? [Note: Prevention of gedng COVID-19? Stopping transmission of COVID-19? Protection against all COVID-19 variants? The answer to all of these is NO.]