Welcome, to the real world

Welcome, to the real world. So you just heard it from the horse's mouth, Pfizer never tested the vaccines for reducing transmission. Now that you're here, there are a few other things you should know.

Firstly, it's true. Pfizer didn't test the vaccines for reducing transmission, and the regulators knew this. If this was your understanding of the vaccine, it's because official public messaging, even from the World Health Organisation, conflated vaccination with reducing transmission. It would reduce transmission they suggested, 'if we all get involved.' No such tests had been done, but I'm sorry to tell you it's much worse than that…

Pfizer did test the vaccine's ability to reduce rates of 'covid-19'. To be specific, 'covid-19' means testing positive and being symptomatic. The data looked great by the way, Pfizer had a wonderful graph to show the effect. The blue line is infections in the unvaccinated, and the red line is infections in the vaccinated.

Pfizer's 'infection reduction' published in NEJM.

But there is a fatal problem with this data, and lots of policy was based on it. That data you can see up there, the main argument for the vaccine passports, the vaccine mandates and all the terrifying media campaigns comes from a fraudulent study.

What does that mean exactly? The investigators were forging documents, forging signatures, changing diagnoses, and unblinding the patients. A whistleblower saw it all, took pictures, took notes, and took the story to the British Medical Journal.

They published it. Read that all again. The investigators on that absolutely critical Pfizer trial were forging documents.

It means the evidence in that graph is worthless until we get to the bottom of the fraud case, which is ongoing. It has the potential to become a trillion-dollar legal case, so how did you not hear about it? The BBC didn't report it at all. But that's not even half of the story…

When credible people tried to inform society about these massive problems, they were silenced. Was it some weird substack or blogspot page that raised these concerns? No, it was the British Medical Journal. When their article came out, Facebook labelled it as misinformation and throttled it across all social media. Yes, Facebook 'fact-checked' the British Medical Journal, and since they own WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook, you were much less likely to hear about it. Pfizer then lobbied hard to block legislation protecting whistleblowers who expose corporate fraud.

So, yes, Pfizer didn't test the vaccine for reducing transmission. They tested it for reducing covid-19, but the study they published is fraudulent. You can listen to an interview I did with Brook Jackson, the named whistleblower on that case; here is the summary:


Brook raised the alarm at 153 sites, only 9 were inspected by the FDA

Untrained staff giving out vaccines

Doctors were unblinded during the trial

Data on patient forms was forged, things like signatures

Investigators requested to change the diagnosis of patients

Patients were not given proper informed consent

Patients were incentivised not to 'tattle' to the media regarding chaotic practice

The debate over the vaccine was tested for is valuable, but the elephant in the room is the massive ongoing legal case about very credible claims of fraud in the trial. So when this subject comes up, and it will, ask the influential people on Twitter and elsewhere if they're at all concerned about the allegations of fraud on the trial. If they're not sure about the case, refer them to the British Medical Journal or my interview in the full article here:


“-///”-Here are the major players who told the Big Lie to the American people that covid vaccines 'stop the spread.'


Watch and share!

“-///”-Federal Reserve Announcement: 6 Large Banks Will Participate In Pilot Climate Scenario Or Social Credit SystemSHTF Plan


“-///”-Betrayal and Extermination of Property Owners: A Thought Experiment

When things feel weird, throwing away assumptions and being alert can save your life.

This story is a thought experiment in how one could steal everything from the property owners of today and trick them into digging their own graves. Unfortunately, this detective plot demands a 'special military operation' of another kind and a premeditated 'soft' genocide.

Conspiracy? Benevolence? Corruption?

There is lots to say about the nature of our relationship with authority in general (not a flattering relationship), about historical precedents, and about possible motives for a genocide today. Read on…



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>