Reprinted from Children's Health Defense - Rockefeller Foundation ‘Reset the Table’ Report Predicted COVID-Related Food Crisis — 2 Years Before It Happened

Just a few months into the COVID-19 pandemic — and almost two years before global health officials warned of a food shortage crisis — the Rockefeller Foundation issued a report predicting the crisis and offering up solutions, including “shifts to online enrollment, online purchasing of food.”

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

Just a few months into the COVID-19 pandemic — and almost two years before global health officials warned of a food shortage crisis — the Rockefeller Foundation issued a report predicting the crisis and offering up solutions, including “shifts to online enrollment, online purchasing of food.”

In a report published July 28, 2020, “Reset the Table: Meeting the Moment to Transform the U.S. Food System,” the foundation described “a hunger and nutrition crisis … unlike any this country has seen in generations.”

The authors blamed the crisis on COVID-19.

The report concluded the crisis would have to be addressed not by strengthening food security for the most vulnerable, but by revamping the entire food system and associated supply chain — in other words, we would need to “reset the table.”

The Rockefeller Foundation called for this food system “reset” less than two months after the World Economic Forum (WEF), on June 3, 2020, revealed its vision for the “Great Reset.”

Some of the contributors to the Rockefeller Foundation report are WEF members; a few of which, along with other proponents of “resetting the table,” also have ties to entities pushing vaccine passports and digital ID schemes.

Rockefeller Foundation: ‘changes to policies, practices, and norms’ are needed

The WEF describes the Rockefeller Foundation as a “science-driven” philanthropic organization that “seeks to inspire and foster large-scale human impact that promotes the well-being of humanity around the world” and which “advances the new frontiers of science, data, policy and innovation to solve global challenges related to health, food, power and economic mobility.”

In the foreword to its 2020 “Reset the Table” report, foundation President Dr. Rajiv J. Shah, who is a former administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), states:

“America faces a hunger and nutrition crisis unlike any this country has seen in generations.

“In many ways, Covid-19 has boiled over long-simmering problems plaguing America’s food system. What began as a public health crisis fueled an economic crisis, leaving 33 percent of families unable to afford the amount or quality of food they want.

“School closures put 30 million students at risk of losing the meals they need to learn and thrive.”

The report did not explain how the Rockefeller Foundation was able to know about this food crisis mere months after the pandemic took hold — especially as the report states it was developed out of “video-conference discussions in May and June 2020.”

The report also didn’t provide any insight into the role pandemic countermeasures such as lockdowns — which the foundation championed along with the WEF — played in contributing to the food crisis..

In its report, the Rockefeller Foundation proposes a series of solutions, derived from “dialogues with over 100 experts and practitioners.”

One recommendation calls for moving away from a “focus on maximizing shareholder returns” to “a more equitable system focused on fair returns and benefits to all stakeholders — building more equitable prosperity throughout the supply chain.”

This may sound like a good idea, until one considers “stakeholders” in this case refers to “stakeholder capitalism” — a concept heavily promoted by the very same large corporations that have been beneficiaries of the shareholder capitalist system.

The WEF also heavily promotes “stakeholder capitalism,” defining it as “a form of capitalism in which companies seek long-term value creation by taking into account the needs of all their stakeholders, and society at large.”

For some context, economic fascism, as personified by the regimes of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, encompassed government-mandated “partnerships” between business, government and unions organized by a system of regional “economic chambers,” and a philosophy where “the common good comes before the private good.”

It is, of course, unclear how the “needs [of] society at large” are determined — or by who.

The Rockefeller Foundation report declares, “Success will require numerous changes to policies, practices, and norms.”

What does such “success” entail? The report names three main objectives:

  • Data collection and digitization: The report calls for “shifts to online enrollment, online purchasing of food, direct farm-to-consumer purchasing, telemedicine, teleconsultations, as well as [broadband access that is essential to] education, finance, and employment.”

The report describes the lack of universal broadband access in this context as “a fundamental resiliency and equity gap.”

  • “Stakeholders” working together with the goal of forming a “collaborative advocacy movement.”

  • “Changes to policies, practices and norms,” which the report says would be “numerous.”

These objectives, dressed up in “inclusive” language, are further described in the report as being beneficial to human health, ensuring “healthy and protective diets” that “will allow Americans to thrive and bring down our nation’s suffocating health care costs.”

The report goes as far as to describe this as a “legacy” of COVID-19, even predicting that doctors will “prescribe” produce for patients.

According to the report:

“One of Covid-19’s legacies should be that it was the moment Americans realized the need to treat nutritious food as a part of health care, both for its role in prevention and in the treatment of diseases.

“By integrating healthy food into the health care system, doctors could prescribe produce as easily as pharmaceuticals and reduce utilization of expensive health services that are often required because of nutrition insecurity.”

But as Dr. Joseph Mercola pointed out, despite this purported emphasis on healthy, nutritious food, the words “organic,” “natural” and “grass fed” do not appear in the report.

What does appear is the phrase “alternative proteins,” in this case referring to proteins derived from the consumption of insects — another concept promoted by the WEF.

In 2021, for instance, the WEF published a report titled “Why we need to give insects the role they deserve in our food systems,” suggesting that “insect farming for food and animal feed could offer an environmentally friendly solution to the impending food crisis [emphasis added].”

Yet again, an “impending food crisis” is forecast, which may lead some to ask how entities such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the WEF even knew what was coming.

As stated by Mercola:

“COVID was declared a pandemic March 11, 2020, so by the time this Rockefeller report was published, the pandemic had only existed for four months, and while certain high-risk groups did experience food insecurity, such as children whose primary meal is a school lunch, widespread food shortages, in terms of empty shelves, were not widely prevalent or particularly severe in the U.S.

“It seems nothing escapes the prophetic minds of the self-proclaimed designers of the future. They accurately foresee ‘natural disasters’ and foretell coincidental ‘acts of God’. They know everything before it happens.

“Perhaps they truly are prophets. Or, perhaps they’re simply describing the inevitable outcomes of their own actions.”

Mercola suggests such crises are inevitable because they are part of “an intentional plan” by the very same actors.

The Rockefeller Foundation’s amazing ‘predictions’ of future crises, and its ties with Big Tech and Big Pharma 

Lending credence to Mercola’s view, and as recently reported by The Defender, the Rockefeller Foundation, WEF and other entities accurately predicted a remarkable number of crises that then came to pass.

For instance, Event 201, held in October 2019 and co-organized by the Rockefeller Foundation, accurately “predicted” the global outbreak of a coronavirus.

Similarly, the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), which co-organized a “tabletop simulation” predicting the global outbreak of monkeypox in March 2021, with an imaginary start date of May 2022, has received $1.25 million in grants from the Rockefeller Foundation since January 2021.

In turn, the other co-organizer of the monkeypox “tabletop simulation,” the Munich Security Conference, in May 2022 held a roundtable with the Rockefeller Foundation on “Transatlantic cooperation on food security.”

Among the suggestions arising from this roundtable include a “focus on transforming the global food system and making it more resilient to future shocks, with steps taken now and over the long term.”

The Rockefeller Foundation is also a partner and board member and donor to GAVI: The Vaccine Alliance — alongside the WEF, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, which hosted Event 201.

As previously reported by The Defender, the GAVI Alliance proclaims a mission to “save lives and protect people’s health,” and states it “helps vaccinate almost half the world’s children against deadly and debilitating infectious diseases.”

GAVI is also a core partner of the World Health Organization (WHO).

The GAVI Alliance — and the Rockefeller Foundation — also work closely with the ID2020 Alliance. Founded in 2016, ID2020 claims to advocate in favor of “ethical, privacy-protecting approaches to digital ID,” adding that “doing digital ID right means protecting civil liberties.”

As reported previously by The Defender, ID2020’s founding partners include the Rockefeller Foundation, GAVI, UNICEF, Microsoft, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Bank, while general partners of ID2020 include Facebook and Mastercard.

For the past two years, the Rockefeller Foundation and entities such as ID2020 and the WEF have been closely involved with the push for digital “vaccine passports.”

For instance, on July 9, 2020, the Commons Project, itself founded by the Rockefeller Foundation, launched “a global effort to build a secure and verifiable way for travelers to share their COVID-19 status” — that is, a vaccine passport.

The Commons Project also was behind the development of the CommonPass, another vaccine passport initiative, developed in tandem with the WEF.

In turn, the Good Health Pass was launched by ID2020, as part of a collaboration between Mastercard, the International Chamber of Commerce and the WEF. It was endorsed by embattled former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, now executive chairman of the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change.

Other members of the Good Health Pass Collaborative include Accenture, Deloitte and IBM — which developed New York’s “Excelsior Pass” vaccine passport system.

The Rockefeller Foundation, along with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, also funded an August 27, 2021 document issued by the WHO titled, “Digital documentation of COVID-19 certificates: Vaccination status.”

The document is described as follows:

“This is a guidance document for countries and implementing partners on the technical requirements for developing digital information systems for issuing standards-based interoperable digital certificates for COVID-19 vaccination status, and considerations for implementation of such systems, for the purposes of continuity of care, and proof of vaccination.”

And in another remarkably prescient “prediction,” the Rockefeller Foundation, in 2010, published a report — “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development” — which presented four future scenarios.

One of these hypothetical scenarios was “Lock Step” — described as “[a] world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback.”

The description of this “Lock Step” scenario goes on to state:

“Technological innovation in ‘Lock Step’ is largely driven by government and is focused on issues of national security and health and safety.

“Most technological improvements are created by and for developed countries, shaped by governments’ dual desire to control and to monitor their citizens.”

This scenario also predicted “smarter” food packaging:

“In the aftermath of pandemic scares, smarter packaging for food and beverages is applied first by big companies and producers in a business-to-business environment, and then adopted for individual products and consumers.”

Moreover, the “Lock Step” scenario remarkably predicted China would fare better than most countries in a hypothetical pandemic, due to the heavy-handed measures it would implement:

“However, a few countries did fare better — China in particular.

“The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.”

The Rockefeller Foundation’s involvement in public health is not new.

Going back more than a century, the foundation heavily promoted “scientific medicine” and formalized medical practice based on the European model on a global scale, at the expense of homeopathy and other traditional and natural remedies.

The foundation’s “philanthropic” activities have been described as “de facto colonialism in countries including China and the Philippines.”

Moreover, the foundation helped give rise to the first global public health entities, the International Health Commission (1913-16) and the International Health Board (1916-1927).

It also helped finance the earliest public health programs at universities such as Harvard and Johns Hopkins — today home to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/rockefeller-foundation-reset-the-table-covid-food-shortage-crisis/

Reprinted from Children's Health Defense - Number of Permanently Disabled Americans Spiked After COVID Shots Rollout

The number of Americans 16 years and older with a disability remained stable from 2016 to 2020, but jumped sharply in early 2021, coinciding with the rollout of COVID-19 injections, according to the analysis of latest available data.

By Dr. Joseph Mercola

Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

Story at a glance:

  • The U.S. population, aged 16 years and over, with a disability remained stable from 2016 to 2020, but jumped sharply in early 2021, coinciding with the rollout of COVID-19 injections.

  • In early 2021, a Twitter user named Ben, who runs a U.S. all-cause mortality site, posted a graph showing the eerily similar rise in disability and cumulative COVID-19 shots, with the number of disabled Americans rising from 30 million to 32.7 million.

  • Within about an hour of posting, the tweet was flagged as “disinformation,” Ben was locked out of his account and comments and sharing of the post were disabled.

  • As of May 27, 14,181 people reported being permanently disabled after receiving COVID-19 shots.

  • In April 2021, U.S. Army lieutenant colonel Harry Chang predicted that U.S. officials were likely to pause the COVID-19 mRNA injection campaign in light of increasing cases of myocarditis following the shots.

  • No pause for mRNA COVID-19 shots occurred, but as of June 8, more than 5,000 cases of myocarditis following the injections have been reported.

The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis runs FRED, a database of economic data that has been tracked since 1991. One of its categories is the U.S. population, aged 16 years and over, with a disability — a population that remained stable from 2016 to 2020, but jumped sharply in early 2021, coinciding with the rollout of COVID-19 injections.

In early 2021, a Twitter user named Ben, who runs a U.S. all-cause mortality site, posted a graph showing the eerily similar rise in disability and cumulative COVID-19 shots, with disabilities among Americans aged 16 years and older rising from 30 million to 32.7 million.

He wrote:

“Is this proof, that the COVID-19 vaccines might have caused 2.9M additional disabilities in the US?… Sharp increase from trend occurs early 2021 when vaccinations started.”

Within about an hour of posting, the tweet was flagged as “disinformation,” Ben was locked out of his account and comments and sharing of the post were disabled.

“Hard to see the problem with the data,” wrote Substack user el gato malo. “Clearly, their issue is with the conclusion.”

14,181 permanently disabled after COVID shots

The Substack article highlights two points on the disability population graph — when 1% of the population had received COVID-19 shots and when 1% had received boosters.

el gato malo wrote:

“I chose this convention because each has a sort of long tail at a very low level leading in but rose rapidly after reaching 1% so it seemed like the best inflection point for maximum relevance. As can be seen, the timing is highly suggestive.”

Spikes in disability can be seen after each of the highlighted points, which makes sense when you look at the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data for COVID-19 shots. As of May 27, 14,181 people reported being permanently disabled after receiving the shots.

According to el gato malo:

“Seeing this … without a rise in disability reports would be surprising. we see 14k permanently disabled in VAERS. And we see a rise in the disabled rolls of 1.8 million.

“That’s pretty close to the 1-2% capture rate (more like 1%, but also likely capturing other categories as well, so hard to be precise) for reporting we’ve seen around other VAERS issues (besides death which seems to get better counted) so it feels like we’re in a ballpark here.”

Past investigations have shown only between 1% and 10% of adverse reactions are ever reported to VAERS, which is a passive, voluntary reporting system, so the actual number of resulting disabilities could be much higher than what’s reflected.

Remarkable correlation between COVID-19 shots and disability

Using data from FRED and Our World in Data (OWID), el gato malo took it a step further, charting the percentage of the population that received a COVID-19 shot in a month, to get an idea of the number of people at risk of vaccine adverse events at any given time.

el gato malo did the same for boosters, then plotted it against disability. The resulting graph is below:

The data are “starting to get past ‘suggestive’ here,” el gato malo notes, explaining exactly what the numbers show:

  • The vaccination series started to get steep in Feb. 2021. Disability got steep in April 2021.

  • Vaccination peaked in may. Disability peaked in June.

  • Vaccination started to rise again after August.

  • Disability began to rise again after October.

  • Then vaxx dropped off after Jan. 2022 and disability flattened out in March 2022.

“2-month lag, 1-month lag, 2-month lag, 2-month lag. 4 separate inflections all tracked in near-identical and highly plausible timeframes for vaccine injury.

“We’re starting to get past ‘suggestive’ here. this zigs, zags, then zigs again, then zags again all as predicted if it were causal and all with the sort of lag you’d associate with reporting, 1-2 months. (All 2 mo. save May-June 2021.)

“The disability series can be a little noisy month to month, but the big trends are all there. Based on what we know about side effects this looks to be an odds on hypothesis at this point. I can see no better fit to the data.”

Military official predicted pause in mRNA COVID shots

The Epoch Times received 19 pages of email messages via a Freedom of Information Act request. Among them was an April 27, 2021, email from U.S. Army Lt. Col. Harry Chang to Tricia Blocher with the California Department of Public Health and other officials from California and the military.

In it, Chang predicted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) were likely to pause the COVID-19 mRNA injection campaign in light of increasing cases of myocarditis following the shots:

“A pause of the Pfizer/Moderna administration (much like the J&J blood clot pause) will have an adverse impact on US/CA vaccination rates; assessed as unlikely due to causes of myocarditis can come from multiple sources (eg. COVID, other conditions, other vaccines/prescriptions, etc) …

“However, increased reported #s & media attention is likely to trigger a safety review pause by ACIP/FDA.”

Increased cases of myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis began to be reported in April 2021 after Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA COVID-19 shots.

“These rare cases of myocarditis or pericarditis have occurred most frequently in adolescent and young adult males, ages 16 years and older, within seven days after receiving the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine,” according to the CDC.

Chang’s email, in particular, was in response to April 2021 news that the Department of Defense was tracking 14 cases of heart inflammation in military patients following receipt of a COVID-19 shot. Israel was also exploring cases of myocarditis following mRNA shots at that time.

Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, part of the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force, was among those who received Chang’s warning, and he responded by asking colleagues for more data from Vaccine Safety Datalink, a CDC system that tracks vaccine safety.

Dozens (24) of cases of myocarditis were flagged by the system but, according to The Epoch Times, “The email chain ended there, with no indication that the officials probed further to see if there was a possible link between the vaccines and heart inflammation.”

An early red flag ignored

The same day that Chang sent the email suggesting that a safety review pause of mRNA COVID-19 shots was likely, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky told the media that the agency had reviewed data but did not believe myocarditis was occurring at an elevated rate:

“We have not seen a signal, and we’ve actually looked intentionally for the signal in the over 200 million doses we’ve given.”

Weeks went by before the public was alerted to the higher-than-expected rates of myocarditis following mRNA COVID-19 shots, even though hundreds of cases had been reported to VAERS by the end of April 2021. As of June 8, more than 5,000 cases have been reported.

“The current evidence supports a causal association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccination and myocarditis and pericarditis,” Shimabukuro stated at a June 7 FDA meeting.

In an email to The Epoch Times, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center, explained that health officials had knowledge of an early safety issue with the shots but ignored it to protect the shots’ reputation to the public:

“The emails ‘reveal there was an early red flag with post-mRNA COVID vaccine-related myocarditis reports in the U.S. and Israel’ but that officials were concerned that acknowledging the risk ‘would have a negative effect on public perception of COVID vaccine safety and uptake.’”

Healthy young people dying after COVID shots

The CDC has downplayed the seriousness of myocarditis following the shots, stating that preliminary data from surveys conducted at least 90 days after myocarditis diagnosis suggest “most patients were fully recovered from their myocarditis.”

However, deaths among previously healthy young people have occurred, including a 36-year-old U.K. mother of two who died 11 days after receiving a Pfizer COVID-19 shot; her death was deemed to be caused by myocarditis due to the shot.

There’s also Dr. Neil Singh Dhalla, a CEO of a major health clinic, who fell asleep four days after he got a COVID-19 booster shot — and died from a heart attack. The autopsy stated myocarditis. He was only 48 years old and had never had heart problems in his life. In another example, epidemiologists confirmed that two teenage boys from different U.S. states died of myocarditis days after getting the Pfizer shot.

Both had received second doses of the shot. In a study that examined the autopsy findings, it’s reported that the “myocarditis” described in the boys’ deaths is “not typical myocarditis pathology.”

A study published in Scientific Reports further revealed that calls to Israel’s National Emergency Medical Services for cardiac arrest and acute coronary syndrome increased more than 25% among 16- to 39-year-olds from Jan. to May 2021, compared to the same time period in 2019 and 2020.

The researchers evaluated the association between the volume of the calls and other factors, including COVID-19 shots and COVID-19 infection, but a link was only found for the volume.26

Yet, it’s unlikely that you’ve heard about these additional red flags in the major media. Just as occurred on Twitter when someone tried to bring attention to a correlation between COVID-19 shots and disability, unfavorable statistics about these shots are quickly silenced and discredited.

What we need now more than anything isn’t more censorship — it’s active investigation and research to uncover the truth before more harm is done, that is desperately needed.

Regarding whether COVID-19 shot rollouts correlate with the number of disabled Americans, el gato malo had this to say:

“I want to stress, this is still a hypothesis and this is my first run-through with this data so I want to let people chew on it and see what else emerges before making claims that are too strong. But this is also REALLY provocative and unless i have really missed something, warrants research and explication, not censorship.”

Originally published by Mercola.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/disabled-americans-covid-vaccine-rollout-cola/

Reprinted from Children's Health Defense - Unvaxxed Army National Guard Members Face Discharge Tomorrow, Unless DOD Moves Deadline

July 1 is the deadline for Army National Guard members to comply with the U.S. military’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate or face separation — unless, as internal U.S. Army documents revealed could happen, officials push the deadline back.

By Susan C. Olmstead

Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

Today is the last day for Army National Guard (ARNG) members to comply with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) COVID-19 vaccine mandate or face separation — unless the DOD pushes back the July 1 deadline, an idea Army officials are considering, according to internal documents.

Under the military’s mandate, after June 30, ARNG members won’t be paid when they are activated on federal status, which includes their monthly drill weekends and their two-week annual training period, Associated Press (AP) reported.

“No Department of Defense funding may be allocated for payment of duties performed [by] members of the National Guard who do not comply with COVID-19 vaccination requirements,” the Pentagon announced in November 2021.

“We’re going to give every soldier every opportunity to get vaccinated and continue their military career,” Lt. Gen. Jon Jensen, ARNG director, on June 25 told AP. “Every soldier that is pending an exemption, we will continue to support them through their process.”

“We’re not giving up on anybody until the separation paperwork is signed and completed,” Jensen added. “There’s still time.”

But as reported June 22 by The Defender, an active-duty senior Army official with access to senior-level information revealed that with 120,000 troops then still unvaccinated, the U.S. Army was considering moving the July 1 deadline.

The whistleblower told The Defender, on condition of anonymity, that a June 2022 internal document revealed the Army is strongly considering pushing the deadline far into the future — but has not yet revealed a date change.

The DOD still plans to separate the unvaccinated soldiers, but instead of enforcing the June 30 deadline, “what they are going to do is hold off on separating soldiers on July 1,” and “will most likely push that into 2023 at the earliest,” the whistleblower said.

The June 2022 Army document confirms this, as it proposes that a “phased approach to involuntary separation” for unvaccinated service members would begin on October 1, 2022, with a “mandatory bar to reenlistment,” while “mandatory involuntary separations for COVID vaccine refusal” would begin January 1, 2023, and “last up to approximately 2 years.”

National Guard unique among service branches

Military branches had varying deadlines for their forces. The Air Force gave its active-duty service members until Nov. 2, 2021, to be vaccinated, while Air National Guard and Reservists had until Dec. 31, 2021, to comply.

The ARNG was given the longest amount of time to get the shots, mainly because it’s a large force of about 330,000 soldiers who are scattered around the country, many in remote locations, AP reported.

Just five days ago, Lt. Gen. Jon Jensen, director of the ARNG, told the AP about 1,500 soldiers a week around the country are “moving into the vaccinated category” with the help of vaccination events.

“We expect, as we approach the deadline, that we’ll see some larger growth,” he said.

On the June 29 episode of The Hill’s “Rising,” host Kim Iversen pointed out that the ARNG is “a different service.”

“A lot of [ARNG members] are not full-time, so a lot of them are working regular jobs, they have regular families and lives, and then they go and they serve the country … It’s not like they’re being deployed off to Germany or Japan,” she said. “I think there’s why there’s more hesitancy.”

“It is something they are facing that is very authoritarian in my view,” Iversen said, adding, ​​“We need to have a conversation about the limits of the military and what they can and cannot command of individuals.”

According to internal documents shared with The Defender, in the ARNG, 280,678 members are fully vaccinated (84.6%), and 7,735 are partially vaccinated (1 dose) (2.3%) — leaving 43,269, or 13%, who have not yet received a single dose.

The documents show that in some states, such as Oklahoma, the vaccination rate for members of the ARNG is as low as 74.11%.

The document lists 15,698 members as “refusals” and 6,749 (2.0%) as going through an exemption process — with 6,257 (1.9%) requesting a religious exemption and 492 (0.1%) requesting a medical exemption.

The document also notes that 80% of unvaccinated soldiers in the ARNG are age 32 or younger, with an average age of 26.2 and median age of 24.

According to CBS News, vaccine compliance among ARNG members is the lowest in the U.S. military — the rate among active-duty Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps is 97% or greater and the Air Guard uptake is about 94%, according to CBSNews.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/army-national-guard-discharge-covid-vaccine-mandate/

Reprinted from Children's Health Defense - Twitter ‘Silenced’ Physicians Who Posted Truthful Information About COVID, Lawsuit Alleges

By Megan Redshaw

Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

Three physicians are suing Twitter, alleging the company violated its own terms of service and community standards when it suspended their accounts for posting “truthful statements regarding COVID-19 policy, diagnosis and/or treatment.”

Drs. Robert Malone, Peter McCullough and Bryan Tyson on Monday filed the lawsuit in Superior Court in California, San Francisco County.

The complaint alleges Twitter breached the terms of its contract when it permanently suspended the plaintiffs’ accounts, silenced their voices and failed to provide them with “verified” badges.

Plaintiffs allege Twitter’s actions were a substantial factor in causing them harm, and are asking the judge to order Twitter to reactivate their accounts.

All three doctors are represented by attorneys Bryan M. Garrie and Matthew P. Tyson (no relation to the plaintiff, Bryan Tyson).

Matthew Tyson on May 12, sent a letter to the directors and managing agents of Twitter requesting the company reinstate the accounts of five physicians, including the plaintiffs, and provide them with “verified” badges. Twitter failed to respond.

In the letter, Matthew Tyson acknowledged Twitter is a “private company” and its terms state it can “suspend user accounts for any or no reason.”

“However, Twitter also implemented specific community standards to limit COVID-19 misinformation on the platform, and Twitter was bound to follow those terms,” he added.

According to the complaint, Twitter’s content-moderation terms included removal procedures for ineffective treatments and false diagnostic criteria, and measures for “labeling” information as “misleading.”

Twitter has a “five-strike policy” as part of its COVID-19 misinformation guidelines and community standards.

Twitter’s website states:

“The consequences for violating our COVID-19 misleading information policy depend on the severity and type of the violation and the account’s history of previous violations. In instances where accounts repeatedly violate this policy, we will use a strike system to determine if further enforcement actions should be applied.”

Strike 1 is “no account-level action.” Strike 2 results in a 12-hour account lock. Strike 3 results in another 12-hour account lock. Strike 4 results in a seven-day account lock and five or more strikes lead to permanent suspension.

Plaintiffs claim they relied on Twitter to employ and enforce its terms in good faith and it was foreseeable to Twitter that plaintiffs would rely on the terms the company is obligated to follow.

According to the complaint, a “truthful tweet regarding COVID-19 policy, diagnosis and/or treatment” would not violate Twitter’s terms of service, community standards, content moderation policies or misinformation guidelines.

“None of these physicians posted false or misleading information, nor did they receive five strikes before suspension,” Matthew Tyson stated in his letter to Twitter.

“It’s no accident that Twitter violated its own COVID-19 misinformation guidelines and suspended the accounts of Drs. Zelenko, Malone, Fareed, Tyson and McCullough,” he wrote.

The letter stated:

“Twitter received express and implied threats from government officials to censor certain viewpoints and speakers, lest Twitter face the amendment or revocation of Section 230, or antitrust enforcement. This was a financial decision for Twitter.

“For the sake of profits, it chose to abandon its role as a neutral internet service provider and instead openly and intentionally collude with government to silence lawful speech.”

In an email to The Defender, lead attorney Garrie and co-counsel Matthew Tyson said:

“In this political climate, honesty is a rare commodity, and concerns over new and experimental vaccines and drug therapies and the safety and effectiveness of alternative outpatient treatments should be the subject of full and transparent public debate.

“Drs. Malone, Tyson and McCullough are highly qualified and credentialed physicians and scientists who posted truthful information on Twitter that contradicted the mainstream narrative regarding COVID-19 policy, diagnosis, and treatment.

“They shared fact-based information which furthered an important public interest as people around the world try to decide how to treat themselves and their loved ones for COVID-19. Twitter silenced them.

“Our clients seek to hold Twitter liable not as a Section 230 publisher, but as a counterparty to a contract, as a promisor who has breached the very terms it put in place to moderate tweets. We will hold Twitter accountable in court and prove the truth of our clients’ statements for the world to see.”

Twitter refused to verify physicians’ accounts

In addition to being suspended from Twitter, the company refused to verify the plaintiffs’ accounts even though the accounts met Twitter’s criteria for verification.

To be verified, an account must be “notable and active.”

Twitter defines a notable account to include “activists, organizers, and other influential individuals,” including “prominently recognized individuals.”

According to the complaint, Malone is an “internationally recognized scientist and physician” who completed a fellowship at Harvard Medical School as a global clinical research scholar and was scientifically trained at the University of California and Salk Institute Molecular Biology and Virology laboratories.

Malone is the “original inventor of mRNA vaccination technology, DNA vaccination and multiple non-viral DNA and RNA/mRNA platform delivery technologies,” and has “roughly 100 scientific publications, which have been cited more than 12,000 times.”

He holds an “outstanding” impact factor rating on Google Scholar and sits as a non-voting member on the National Institutes of Health [Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines] committee, which is tasked with managing clinical research for a variety of drug and antibody treatments for COVID-19.

The complaint states Malone used his Twitter account to post truthful statements regarding COVID-19 policy, diagnosis and/or treatment. He received no strikes for his content and he did not violate Twitter’s rules, yet his account was permanently suspended.

McCullough, according to the complaint, is a highly accomplished physician who is the founder and current president of the Cardiorenal Society of America.

He has been “published more than 1,000 times, made presentations on the advancement of medicine across the world and has been an invited lecturer at the New York Academy of Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency.”

McCullough has also served on the editorial boards of multiple specialty journals and was a member or chair of data safety monitoring boards of 24 randomized clinical trials.

He was a “leader in the medical response to COVID-19, has more than 30 peer-reviewed publications on the infection, and has commented and testified extensively on COVID19 treatment, including before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,” the lawsuit states.

McCullough’s account was suspended, but Twitter allowed him to create a new account that is followed by more than 480,000 people. Yet, he is still unable to receive a “verified” badge.

In a June 28 tweet, McCullough said “trouble is on the horizon for the “common carrier” whose only role is to provide a platform for communications operations,” referring to the lawsuit.

Tyson is a licensed physician with15 years of hospital and emergency medicine experience. He practices with Dr. George Fareed, who also was suspended from Twitter for posting what he claimed was truthful COVID-19 information.

Tyson and Fareed have “gained international recognition for providing successful early treatment to more than 10,000 COVID-19 patients, with zero patient deaths when treatment was started within 7 days,” the complaint states.

Tyson testified in various proceedings about early treatment protocols and co-authored a book about COVID-19.

He also ran as a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives for California’s 25th Congressional District, yet was not deemed a “notable figure of public interest” regarding COVID-19 policy, diagnosis and/or treatment, which prohibited him from obtaining a “verified” badge on Twitter.

Tyson says he posted only truthful statements about COVID-19 policy, diagnosis and/or treatment with his account, and none of his tweets were classified as a “strike” or violated Twitter’s terms of service.

Like Malone’s, Tyson’s and Fareed’s accounts were permanently suspended.

“In a nutshell, these are five [physicians] of the most knowledgeable and helpful voices in the world regarding COVID-19 treatment,” Matthew Tyson wrote in his letter. “Disturbingly, Twitter silenced all of them.”

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/twitter-physicians-covid-lawsuit/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=2b381935-4564-4033-bd96-aead94941859

Reprinted from THE EXPOSE - Latest Survey Shows 3.7% Rate of Myocarditis in “Vaccinated” Americans BY RHODA WILSON

This is a health disaster. This rate is over 500 times higher than what the CDC claims. Doctors will remain silent on this as they are not permitted to challenge the “safe and effective” narrative.

By Steve Kirsch

Executive summary

The CDC has always told us that there is only a slightly elevated risk of myocarditis from getting the vaccine. They cite data from the VAERS system showing low report rates. However, they always conveniently “forget” to mention that VAERS is under-reported and fail to estimate the VAERS under-reporting factor. This means their estimates are likely off by a factor of 100 or more.

Now we have confirmation from multiple sources that the CDC is misleading people and that their numbers are, in fact, at least 100X too low:

  1. A direct user survey of a cross-section of America done by a professional polling firm (with a 4% nominal margin of error) shows a 3.7% rate of myocarditis among those Americans who took the vaccine who responded to the survey. This number is consistent with earlier runs of the survey with different respondents. It is 500X higher than the CDC numbers.

  2. A paper published in Nature shows rates of myocarditis post-vaccine that can be up to 140 times normal. That’s not a “slightly elevated risk.”

  3. An estimate from a US Army Flight Surgeon of a 4% myocarditis rate among military pilots who were vaccinated, very consistent with our survey.

  4. A myocarditis rate of at least 1% in a local school near me where a parent revealed the number of myocarditis rates in the school.

Also, this latest survey confirmed the death estimate in the earlier survey (which was 600,000 minimum). In this case, 8.12/12.79 which is Q19/Q23 which is the ratio of deaths from the vaccine/deaths from Covid. So, if 1M people died from Covid, then over 600,000 people died from the vaccine.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

EMAIL ADDRESS

SUBSCRIBE


Follow The Exposé’s Official Channel on Telegram here
Join the conversation in our Telegram Discussion Group here

Introduction

The CDC says the highest rates of myocarditis are among 12- to 17-year-old males with up to 69 cases per million second doses.

But we just got back a survey that clearly shows that the rates of myocarditis are much higher than that: 3.7 cases per 100 people vaccinated. That’s a statistic over all Americans who have been vaccinated, not just young boys. It’s Question 5. 14.03 said yes out of 371 who were vaccinated. 14.03/371= 3.7%.

That’s a rate that is 536 times higher than the highest value the CDC told us. They assured us that there was just a “slightly elevated risk” of myocarditis from the vaccine.

They never told us that we’re seriously injuring 3.7% of the people being vaccinated. This new number explains why hospitals are seeing so many cases of myocarditis.

An Army flight surgeon estimated a 4% rate of myocarditis among military pilots based upon personal professional observation. It appears that that estimate was not far off.

Also, at Monte Vista Christian School in Watsonville, CA there are now 5 known cases of myocarditis but only 400 boys, not all have been vaccinated. So, this again supports the survey. Note that the head of school isn’t talking. Apparently, Christian values compel the administration to keep silent about injuries to the kids so that other parents are not alerted to the risks and will thus be more likely to vaccinate their kids. So, the rates could be much higher than 1% at the school since the 5 cases are just the ones we know about from one of the parents at the school.

About the latest survey

See this article analysing a recent survey. It has three runs of the survey and has the source data. The article also has a methodology section describing how the survey was done (and referring to an earlier article for details).

Basically, 500 people are selected at random from across the US. Once they answer the first question, they are counted in the 500. The first question cannot be used to tell the nature of the survey so there is no selection bias. The numbers are adjusted based on the demographics of the people who responded to match the overall US demographics.

You can use the raw numbers or the adjusted numbers in the computations. It doesn’t matter: the results, either way, are devastating for the US government.

This is why the CDC and mainstream media never run these surveys: they don’t want to know the truth and, more importantly, they do not want you to know the truth.

Confirmation from peer-reviewed scientific literature

Here’s exactly what the paper published in Nature says (Age and sex-specific risks of myocarditis and pericarditis following Covid-19 messenger RNA vaccines). Note that on Dose 2 for males (lower left graph), all error bars for males are above the dotted “normal” line:

So even if you don’t believe our survey, this paper says that the risks can be as much as 88 times higher than the normal rate in males and up to 140 times higher than normal in females.

Summary

The CDC tells us that there is just a “slightly elevated risk” of myocarditis from the vaccine and there is absolutely nothing to worry about.

Our latest survey and this new article in Nature just don’t match up with what the CDC says.

Our surveys suggest you should avoid the vaccines entirely as the risk profile doesn’t justify the benefits, especially for a virus that if treated early is a minor annoyance. This matches the recommendations of a recent paper by Peter Doshi and others.

Your doctor will not be able to mention any of this to you without fear of losing her license to practice medicine. So, the medical community will ignore this result even though they can easily replicate the study.

That’s just how medicine works nowadays.

Source: A 3.7% rate of myocarditis in our latest survey of vaccinated Americans, Steve Kirsch, 28 June 2022

Further reading: Serious Heart Inflammation 44 Times Higher After Covid Vaccination, Nature Study Finds, The Daily Sceptic, 27 June 2022

https://expose-news.com/2022/06/30/survey-3-7-rate-of-myocarditis-in-vaccinated-americans/

Reprinted from THE EXPOSE - A New Paper Defeats Australian Vaccine Mandates BY RHODA WILSON

In a new paper, Dr. Wilson Sy statistically analysed New South Wales (“NSW”) data to assess whether the experimental Covid injections have been effective as vaccines in reducing infection, severe disease, and death in the NSW epidemic.

“The NSW data show that the experimental Covid-19 injections did not function as vaccines, because they did not decrease, but increase, infection, severe disease and death. Therefore, Covid-19 vaccination mandates cannot be reasonably enforced with the experimental Covid-19 injections which do not function as effective vaccines,” Dr. Wilson Sy wrote.

Dr. Sy’s paper, yet to be peer-reviewed, titled ‘A statistical evaluation of Covid-19 injections for safety and effectiveness in the New South Wales epidemic’ was published on ResearchGate this month.

Dr Wilson Sy of Investment Analytics Research, is a former Principal Researcher at the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (“APRA”) and an executive at the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (“ASIC”) and the Australian Treasury.

Below are the introduction, interpretation and conclusions extracted from his 9-page paper.  You can read the full paper, with references, HERE.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

EMAIL ADDRESS

SUBSCRIBE


Follow The Exposé’s Official Channel on Telegram here
Join the conversation in our Telegram Discussion Group here

By Dr. Wilson Sy

Introduction

On 23 December 2021, the New South Wales Minister for Health, The Hon B Hazzard, made the Public Health (Covid-19 Vaccination of Health Care Workers) Order (No 3) 2021. Clause 3 of this order states that the grounds for mandating Covid-19 vaccination for NSW Health Care Workers include:

(f) ensuring that health care workers are vaccinated will reduce—

(i)         the risk of infection, severe disease, and death in the workers, and

(ii)        the risk of transmission of infection from workers to patients and other workers

This Public Health Order is a mandate on experimental injections which have not been proven to provide “Covid-19 vaccination” either in US clinical trials or in real-world applications in NSW. The assumption of this mandate is examined in this paper.

The Covid-19 injections (Covid injections) are not vaccines per medical dictionary definitions of being injections of attenuated viruses. The World Health Organization (WHO), followed by NSW Health, redefined vaccines functionally to accommodate mRNA genetic Covid injections which are designed to produce antibodies to reduce the risk of infection, transmission, severe disease, and death, as stated in the Public Health Order.

The Covid injections are experimental and are not yet proven vaccines because they have not been fully tested in clinical trials to meet the functional definition of reducing the risk of infection, transmission, severe disease, and death. Importantly, the Covid injections have never been shown to be safe according to established testing standards. 

In December 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave emergency use authorisation (EUA) to the Covid injections on the assumption that they will be proven to be effective vaccines to mitigate a deadly pandemic. The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) followed the FDA without independent testing of the injections and granted approvals based entirely on documentation of “clinical (pharmacology, safety and efficacy) and risk management plan information submitted by the sponsor”.

With over a year of experimental application of the Covid injections, this paper examines the real-world NSW data to assess the effectiveness of Covid injections as vaccines in mitigating the Covid-19 epidemic in NSW.

Interpretation

The official raw data displayed simply and in full perspective have led to conclusions which are opposite to those proclaimed by the NSW health minister, Hon B Hazzard, who has been misinformed and misled by health experts and official reports as mentioned above [see full paper]. 

The belief that Covid injections are “95% effective” has been proven empirically false by real-world NSW data. The false belief originated in the results of limited clinical trials which are considered the “gold standard” of randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. However, those clinical trials are inappropriate for real-world epidemiological applications, because they are static, not dynamic, and they do not control for many relevant factors including demography, geography and varying population health status. Put simply, clinical results have been shown to be invalid for NSW epidemiology.

In view of the strong evidence, many have conceded that Covid injections have been ineffective as vaccines, but put the blame of failure on new variants due to virus mutation over time. Since Covid injections were developed and tested only against the first variant, we question why they continue to be used for new variants when they are no longer effective. 

Though many concede that Covid injections do not reduce infection or transmission, they rationalise by the false claim that Covid injections reduce the severity of disease and deaths. The two-month clinical trials did not test for safety and did not comment on the safety of the injections, which will be formally assessed by the FDA in 2023. In the interim, NSW data presented in this paper show that the Covid injections are unsafe according to traditional criteria. 

There are now over one thousand papers published to explain how the Covid injections can cause severe diseases and deaths, enormous numbers of which already have been reported globally to databases of health authorities as adverse events. Despite likely substantial underreporting of deaths, some lethal consequences may be captured in national all-cause mortality statistics. Australian data show significantly higher excess mortality of 8,517 deaths in 2021 after Covid injections versus 1,366 deaths in 2020 before injections.

The NSW Government has not allocated adequate resources to investigate reported adverse events associated with the injections, which have significant safety risks for which the public has not been properly informed. Health care workers witnessing at first-hand adverse events are likely to become “vaccine-hesitant”. In January this year, almost 1,000 NSW health workers quit or were dismissed after refusing to get the experimental Covid injections. The health sector has become so understaffed, particularly in rural and regional areas, that the NSW health system is nearing collapse.

Conclusions

From NSW data, this paper has shown that the Public Health (Covid-19 Vaccination of Health Care Workers) Order (No 3) 2021 is based on a false assumption that the experimental Covid-19 injections function as vaccines. The injections were associated with a worse epidemic, with increased infection, transmission, severe disease and death, showing enhanced risks without discernible overall benefit. Therefore, without functional vaccines, vaccine mandates cannot reasonably be enforced on anyone, including health care workers. 

https://expose-news.com/2022/06/30/new-paper-defeats-australian-vaccine-mandates/

Reprinted from "THE EXPOSÉ" - The failings of the State in the Uvalde School Massacre exposed BY THE EXPOSÉ

The strongest protective desire, the most powerful gut reaction that humans and most mammals have as a species is to protect our young. Politics is about harnessing gut reactions to get votes.

By a concerned reader

Winston Churchill said: Never let a good crisis go to waste. What I am proposing here is that the modern politician has taken this a few steps further and asked the question: What type of crisis do we need?

How could we create such a crisis? Who could we get to cause the crisis with impunity and how can we be sure to harness the emotional power it creates?

In the last century politicians were largely crisis exploiters. But 21st-century politicians have become crisis devisors and the mainstream media have always been crisis amplifiers.

The modern politician uses the security services or the police to manufacture a crisis which they then exploit politically. They do not wait for the right crisis to come along. For mankind ran out of patience as a species a while back.

In order to achieve this politicians must have total control of the mainstream media and of the relevant part of the security services or the relevant police department and the DOJ and the FBI. They have to be in a position to shut down any effective journalistic or criminal investigation into who really caused the crisis. The plan will fail and be exposed if they have insufficient control of investigative agencies with prosecutorial power. They can get away with alternative media exposure by drowning it out or ignoring it in their mainstream mouthpieces.

A Gallup poll conducted on June23 shows that: 66% of Americans support stricter gun laws, up 14 points since October 2021. That unquestionably is the political dividend that the Uvalde school massacre has yielded. 52% in October, a non-significant majority, has become 66% in June, a very significant majority. 

On May 24, Salvador Ramos shot and killed 19 children and 2 teachers in the Robb elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. The 18-year-old gunman wore body armour and also shot his grandmother who survived.

Steven McCraw, the director of the Texas Department of Public Safety revealed at a Texas Senate hearing on June23 that one of the teachers, Eva Mireles, rang her husband Ruben Luiz, who was a policeman attending the crime scene and told him she had been shot and was dying. McCraw said that:

“He tried to move forward into the hallway,” But “He was detained and they took his gun away from him and escorted him off the scene.” – 

McCraw did not reveal which agency’s officials removed him from the scene.

The order of events was

11:28 Ramos arrives at school
11:29 Teacher calls 911
11:32 Ramos fires multiple shots outside school
11:33 Ramos enters school.
11:35: 3 armed officers enter the school through the same door as Ramos who shoots at them and grazes one of them. They retreat.
11:35: District Police Chief Pete Arredondo arrives without his police radio 
11:36: 4 more officers arrive
11:37 Ramos fires 16 shots.
11:40 Police Chief calls Uvalde Police department using his cell phone.
11:40 More shots from Ramos
11:44: Police again enter the building and the Police Chief gets to the door of the classroom in which the children and teachers are being shot and says the door was locked. McCraw, testified at the Texas Senate hearing on June23, that the door could not be locked from the inside. In fact it was not locked. The school video did not show the Police Chief reaching the door at all. The Police Chief calls for a SWAT team and snipers and keys to all school doors and extrication tools  on his cell phone.
11:48: Eva Mireles is shot and calls her husband who arrives in the building at this time.
11:52: Further armed officers arrive with a ballistic shield.
11:54  21 minutes after the shooter enters the school, an onlooker, Angel Ledezma, streams a live video showing parents begging police to enter the school.
12:01 DPS Special agent says: This is a hostage rescue situation we should go in.
12:30 Kid calls 911
12:04: By now 19 police officers with 3 ballistic shields are in the hallway outside the classroom.
12:10 SWAT guys arrive and kid makes 911 call from classroom.
12:10 Kid calls 911
12:11 Police Chief Arredondo call for a master key.
12:14 Kid calls 911 again. Contents of call are not released.
12:15 Border Control tactical unit arrives with more shields.
12:16 Kid calls 911 again.
12:17: Arredondo tries master key on different door
12:17: Onlookers beg for action
12:19 Another Kid calls 911
12:21 Another kid calls 911 and 3 shots can be heard during his call
12:26 Arredondo tries to talk to Ramos.
12:35 Officer with forcible entry tool arrives.
12:38 Arredondo again tries to talk to Ramos
12:43 Ramos shoots the door
12:46 Arredondo gets approval to enter (which must therefore have been denied prior to this point – but by whom?)
12:47 Kid calls 911 and says he can hear the police next door- please send them now. 
12:50. ONE border patrol tactical officer (not under the police chief) enters the room with the janitor’s keys (that were not needed) and kills Ramos.

“Three minutes after the suspect entered the west building, there was a sufficient number of armed officers wearing body armour to isolate, distract, and neutralize the subject,” McCraw said. “The only thing stopping a hallway of dedicated officers from entering Room 111, and 112, was the on-scene commander, who decided to place the lives of officers before the lives of children.”

“The officers had weapons, while the children had none. The officers had body armour, the children had none. The officers had training, the subject had none,” McCraw said Tuesday. “One hour, 14 minutes and eight seconds. That’s how long the children waited, and the teachers waited, in Room 111 to be rescued. And while they waited, the on-scene commander waited for radio and rifles. And he waited for shields, and he waited for SWAT. Lastly, he waited for a key that was never needed.”

So here are the facts.

1. The police chief, the onsite commander, dishonestly represented that the door was locked when it was not locked and video shows that he never even reached that door.
2. The police chief commanded his officers not to stop the shooting for 1 hour 14 minutes and 8 seconds on the false ground that they needed the right key for the door or a means of forced entry
3. The police chief had Ruben Ruiz arrested and disarmed and removed from the scene as he was going in to rescue his wife who had been shot and was dying
4. McCraw will not reveal which agency ordered the removal of Ruben Ruiz or which agency was commanding the Police chief Arredondo.

As McCraw stated, there were easily enough armed officers to save every child. The police response time was good. The numbers were good. But the leadership was entirely satanic Anyone who denies a husband a chance to save his dying wife is unfit to hold any authority at all. Ruben Luiz was a fully trained police officer. In the end Ramos was taken down by one office not ten. Ruben could have done that himself. The shooter, Ramos, only shot women and children. He failed to shoot any armed man other than grazing one of them possibly via a ricochet.

McCraw drew the conclusion that Arredondo put the lives of his officers before the lives of the children. That is not what happened. He put his orders above the lives of the children. And McCraw will not reveal from whom those orders came. So it looks to me like both McCraw and Arredondo put their relationship with their paymasters above the lives of those children. As is the case with every Doctor who has vaccinated a child with a gene corrupting Covid shot. 

The inescapable conclusion is that Arredondo and his handlers did not want those children rescued. They wanted them shot. In fact the calls from Arredondo to Ramos were effectively warning to Ramos to finish the job because the Police Chief felt that he could not hold the 19+ officers back any longer. In the end it was an officer not under Arredondo’s direct control who tackled Ramos.

But the real villain here is neither McCraw nor Arredondo. It is the agency that ordered Arredondo to apprehend disarm and remove Ruben Ruiz and not to proceed with the rescue of the kids until Ramos had been given the time he needed to kill them all.

This was a political decision made by a politicised agency (because they are all politicised these days). It was more important to that agency to have the crisis to exploit politically than it was to save the children and the teachers. Arredondo was an agent of that agency. Welcome to the politics of the 21st century. These and the kind of people we are voting for (or rather Dominion machines and 2000 mules are voting for).. 

The US has hundreds of gun laws most of which are not enforced properly. All they do is reduce the number of guns held by law-abiding citizens. They have absolutely no effect on the number of guns held by criminals. If you have decided to commit a high-profile mass murder you are not going to be dissuaded by gun laws. You know you are going to jail for the rest of your life for the mass murder anyway.

But the globalists wish to enslave everybody on the planet. And the 2nd amendment stands in their way. That is what those 19 kids and 2 teachers were murdered by that hidden agency for. The agency that Arredondo obeyed and that McCraw protected. They were sacrificed to move public opinion by 14 points in the battle by the deep state globalists to disarm all opposition to their enslavement  The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to provide the people with a means to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical.

Here are the people that the present tyrannical administration, for political advantage, prevented 19 police officers from saving –

Irma Garcia, 48
Eva Mireles, 44

Nevaeh Alyssa Bravo, 10
Makenna Lee Elrod, 10
Jose Manuel Flores Jr., 10
Eliahna Garcia, 10
Uziyah Garcia, 10
Amerie Jo Garza, 10
Xavier Lopez, 10
Jayce Carmelo Luevanos, 10
Tess Mata, 10
Miranda Mathis, 11
Alithia Ramirez, 10.
Annabell Rodriguez, 10
Maite Rodriguez, 10
Alexandria “Lexi” Rubio, 10
Layla Salazar, 11
Jailah Nicole Silguero, 10
Eliahana Cruz Torres, 10
Rojelio Torres, 10
Jacklyn Cazares, 9

Follow Daily Expose on Telegram

https://expose-news.com/2022/06/30/failings-of-state-in-uvalde-school-massacre-exposed/