Australian Broadcasting CEO chastised Joe Rogan

Australian Broadcasting Boss Attacks Joe Rogan As 'Malevolent Figure Preying On The Public'
by Tyler Durden
Dec 02, 2024

The far flung nation of Australia and its close neighbor New Zealand were widely considered two of the worst examples of authoritarian western response to the covid pandemic.  The Australian public was locked down and under house arrest in the larger cities.  In some cases only one person would be allowed to leave home at a time and could only travel a short distance to shop for necessities.  People who went to public parks or beaches were fined or arrested.  Covid camps were created to detain not only people who had traveled overseas, but also people who simply tested positive.

Most disturbing of all, Australian officials had people arrested who dared to criticize the lockdowns on social media. Australian news organizations widely defended such measures in lockstep with the government narrative.  With the exception of a few minor complaints, journalists from the land down under acted as propagandists for the government and for Big Pharma.

It was these Orwellian conditions and similar attempts across the west that led to many personalities in the alternative media to speak out and become decidedly anti-establishment.  One of those figures was podcaster Joe Rogan.  

Rogan attracted the full fury of the corporate media for engaging in interviews with lockdown critics who debunked many of the narratives put forward by government authorities.  As it turns out, in the majority of cases Rogan and his guests were right.  The fearmongering over covid was overblown.  The lockdowns were ineffective.  Social distancing was ineffective.  The masks were ineffective.  The vaccines were suspiciously experimental and proven less effective than natural immunity.  Death numbers were inflated by comorbidities.  

The virus itself only has an average Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of 0.23%, meaning 99.8% of all people regardless of vaccination status were under no threat (the original false claims from the WHO and others was that the virus was deadly for 3% of people).     

The lockdowns were pointless in terms of public health, but very useful in terms of public control.

To this day, many in the media still despise Joe Rogan and the alternative media for revealing the inconsistencies within the covid theater.  Not to mention, they hate the fact that their elitist ivory tower is being torn down by civilian journalists.  This was the motivation behind a recent attack on Rogan by the head of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Kim Williams, at the Australian Press Club (Williams took over the position at ABC at the start of 2024).  Williams described Rogan as 'malevolent' - a person that 'preys on the fears of the public'.

    Australian Broadcasting Corporation boss Kim Williams launches an unhinged tirade against Joe Rogan (@joerogan):

    "People like Mr. Rogan prey on people's vulnerabilities. They prey on fear. They prey on anxiety."

    "I personally find it deeply repulsive, and to think that someone… pic.twitter.com/NNenTOkiqP
    — Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) November 27, 2024

Many would refer to the venomous comments spit by Kim Williams as gaslighting and projection.  Joe Rogan is popular because of his sincerity, a quality which is severely lacking in modern journalism.  It's the establishment media that commonly exploits fear and disinformation to set the public into a frenzy; it's this very behavior that caused millions of consumers to abandon mainstream outlets in the first place.

The ABC reported in 2023 that public trust in corporate media and the government was in steep decline post-covid.  Instead of asking why this is the case and having the courage to participate in some self examination, media elites have instead chosen to blame podcasters like Joe Rogan (and the supposed ignorance of the public) for their fall from grace.

When ABC radio host Raf Epstein (an employee) asked Williams to speak further about his views on Mr Rogan and expand on his broad-brush attack, the ABC boss dredged up old covid-era accusations with no validity.

Epstein:  “Are you worried that podcasts that don’t provide the scrutiny that you might get on the ABC, that they are the future, and that we really are going out of fashion?”

Williams:  “Well, I would hope that we're the best antidote to misinformation and, more alarmingly, disinformation...I mean, Joe Rogan did an enormous, in my view, an enormous amount of damage back in 2020 and 2021, when he was particularly virulent in many of his remarks about vaccinations...I don’t think people have unlimited license to say what they want, simply because they believe something to be so...”

It's important to note that covid cases and deaths plunged in 2021 well before the experimental mRNA vaccines were widely released to the public.  It should also be noted that the vaccines did not prevent transmission as officials originally claimed.

Williams then turned to gaslighting.  Angry that he had received so much criticism online for his comments, he accused Rogan fans of being "made of glass" and unable to handle critique.

Williams:  “What fascinates me is you say something negative about Joe Rogan – and I have been swarmed with the most unbelievably vicious responses. I got one this morning that said that I should stay in my lane and watch out, and you read it and you think, ‘What are you saying to me?’”

Epstein:  “Do you think they’ve got glass jaws?”

Williams:  “Their whole body is made of glass. How can people react in such a, frankly, demonic fashion? I really stand back in disbelief..."

Keep in mind, ABC news has shut off comments on the Youtube video of Williams' Press Club interview.  Exactly the kind of behavior you would expect from a mainstream propagandist with a glass jaw.

Asked whether podcasts were “a threat” to the ABC, Willaims answered in the affirmative.

“Of course they’re a threat to the ABC. I think they’re a threat to all views that are contrary into their own...If they represent the newfound mainstream, our society has deep troubles, and the only response that is available is to back education and knowledge...Knowledge is the is the antidote to this kind of hysterical rubbish.”

Considering the reality that the alternative media has been consistently proven right while the corporate media has been consistently exposed as dishonest, this kind of rhetoric from Williams rings rather humorous.  The attacks on alternative personalities like Rogan stink of desperation.  The last gasps of a dying institution long bereft of honor or honesty.

Calls Grow for Bill Gates’ Arrest

Calls Grow for Bill Gates’ Arrest After He Admits Using India as a ‘Kind of Laboratory’ to Test Vaccines
Frank Bergman
December 8, 2024

Billionaire Bill Gates has provoked a widespread and escalating backlash after he admitted that he’s been using India as a “kind of laboratory” to test his “vaccines” and conduct other experiments on Indian citizens.

Gates made the remarks during a recent interview with fellow Jeffrey Epstein-linked billionaire Reid Hoffman.

The Microsoft co-founder gloated during the interview that he uses India as “a kind of laboratory to try things.”

Gates claims that his experiments on Indians will ensure that people are “better off” in the future.

“And it’s kind of a laboratory to try things that then when you prove them out in India you can take to other places,” Gates told Hoffman, the founder of LinkedIn.

“And so, our biggest non-U.S. office for the [Gates Foundation] is in, is in India.

“And the most number of pilot rollout things we’re doing anywhere in the world are with partners in India.”

The comments from Gates have triggered outrage on social media.

People have been flooding X to blast Gates for using human beings as guinea pigs, according to Natural News.

Many have started calling for Gates’ arrest and accuse the billionaire of committing “crimes against humanity.”

“Arrest Bill Gates for crimes against humanity,” Liz Churchill (@liz_churchill10) declared in a post in X.

Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer is also highly active in India.

In India, rules and regulations are far more relaxed.

Pfizer tests deadly, experimental drugs on the Indian people.

India is used as a testing ground before vaccines are rolled out for public use throughout the West.

“If your governments weren’t under the influence of the World Economic Forum’s young global leaders, they would never have opposed government agencies conducting their own clinical trials for new medicines entering the country,” “OurVoicesMatter” (@OV_Matter) posted in response to Gates’s remarks.

“Just look at what happened with Pfizer when India proposed conducting their own trials.”

Another X user noted how casually and openly Gates talks about his eugenics agenda.

“Treating a whole country as a testing ground shows a complete lack of respect for its people,” they said.

“Seriously, why do they let this lunatic do this stuff??” asked another about Gates.

“He’s not a doctor!” they added.

“He’s some psycho egomaniac that for some reason some clowns listen to.”

“Is he saying that there are so many Indians that it doesn’t matter, or that their lives are worth less?” wrote another.

“If he is, that is actual racism, as opposed to the bigotry that is normally labeled as racism in the media etc.”

Another argued that India has been is being ravaged and raped by multinational corporations and Western governments for profit.

In a post on X,  “shashi kusuma” (@ShashiKusuma) said:

“Although there have been great strides made in the last few years on the infrastructure and economic front and especially in the space and tech front, and Despite conventional PR, India has become a free for all for thugs and free for all gunda Raj due to the loss of any sense of long term vision based on fundamentals, loss of identity, loss of sovereignty, with too many home grown enemies (portrayed as social justice warriors fighting for democracy) amplified by outside influences that are working hard to Balkanize and destroy the civilization piece meal.”

“This is yet another example of such debauchery.”

EU alarmed as birth rates plummet...

Actually EU is showing fake anxiety.

Decreasing world population had been the intention of Globalists (spearheaded by WEF). So, they unleashed two bio-weapons -- coronavirus and covid injections.

Virus killed many people while many were murdered in hospital using Midazolam and Ventilators.

Covid vax caused miscarriages, pregnancy difficulty, still-births, heavy menstrual bleeding, etc in women.

Covid vax resulted in lower sperm counts in men.

Both of the above measures is helping to reduce world population by design!!!

European Union Sounds Alarm as Birth Rates Plummet to Record Low
Frank Bergman
Dec 8, 2024

Official data from the European Union (EU) has revealed that the bloc’s birth rate has plummeted to a record low.

However, the data shows that the bloc’s overall population has been rising due to immigration, despite the drop in births.

The shocking plunge was revealed in the latest data from the EU’s statistical office Eurostat.

The latest figures show that the number of babies born in the EU fell to a record low last year.

Despite this, the total population has been on the rise due to mass immigration.

Most of the influx of migrants has come from the Middle East and third-world nations.

According to Eurostat’s figures, births across the EU’s 27 member states stood at 3,665,000 in 2023.

This marks a decline of 5.5% year-on-year.

Birth rates have been falling steadily across the EU in recent years.

Meanwhile, immigration rates have been soaring.

The number of births last year was the lowest in the EU countries since comparable data was first collected in 1961.

The annual decline is the largest on record, the Financial Times (FT) reports.

The sharpest drops in births over the past decade have been recorded in Italy, Spain, Greece, Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states.

Demographic experts polled by the FT believe the longstanding trend of Europeans having fewer babies may have been exacerbated by concerns over economic and political tensions on the international level.

They also believe the worst surge in inflation in a generation, and fears over “climate change” and the Covid pandemic have put people off from starting families.

According to a recent report, the Total Fertility Rate has halved from 3.3 children per woman in 1960 to 1.5 in 2022 in the 38 countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

The OECD includes 22 EU member states plus Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, and others.

According to Eurostat, all EU regions have fertility rates below the replacement level of 2.1 live births per woman.

Nevertheless, the population of the EU has been on the rise over the past decade, with the exception of the pandemic year of 2021.

The most notable jump was recorded in 2023, according to Eurostat figures.

“The negative natural change (more deaths than births) was outnumbered by the positive net migration,” the agency said in a release in July.

Eurostat attributed the population growth to increased migration after the pandemic.

The agency also noted the influx of immigrants from Ukraine who received temporary protection status in the EU.

While Ukraine is in Europe, the country is not a member state of the EU.

Modern cars collect and share your data !!!

These car brands are collecting and sharing your data with third parties
By James Purtill
9 Oct, 2024

In short:

An investigation by consumer advocacy group Choice found most of Australia's popular car brands collect and share "driver data", ranging from braking patterns to video footage.

Kia and Hyundai collect voice recognition data from inside their cars and sell it to an artificial intelligence software training company.

What's next?

Privacy and consumer rights advocates are pushing for law reform to limit data collection to what is "fair and reasonable".

Popular car brands are collecting and sharing driver data from braking patterns and odometer readings to vehicle location and voice recognition information, consumer advocacy group Choice has found.

Choice sifted through the privacy policies of the 10 most popular car brands in Australia to identify which tracked their drivers and passengers.

As car makers add microphones, sensors and other internet-connected features, cars are fast becoming all-seeing data-harvesting machines dubbed "smartphones on wheels".

But many car makers are not being up-front about data collection and often keep the fine print in their privacy policies vaguely worded, Choice investigative reporter Jarni Blakkarly said.

"We found that seven out of 10 of those car brands contain concerning privacy policies that allow them to track driver data, driving habits, and sell that data to third parties.

"We found Hyundai, Kia and Tesla to be the most concerning."

What data are they collecting?

Kia and Hyundai, which have the same parent company, collect voice recognition data from inside their cars and sell this to the artificial intelligence (AI) software training company Credence, the Choice investigation found.

"We think that the average Hyundai driver, the average Kia driver, when they purchase their car, have no idea that this is happening," Mr Blakkarly said.

"They haven't really properly consented to their voice being used to train AI models."

Tesla collects short images and videos from cameras inside and outside their cars. Tesla workers have been caught sharing among themselves highly invasive camera recordings of Tesla customers in the nude, as well as images of crashes and road-rage incidents.

The videos and images Tesla collects may be shared with third parties, Mr Blakkarly said.

"The way their privacy policy is written is incredibly vague and gives them space to potentially share that data."

In general, privacy policies were vaguely worded, he added. Mazda, for instance, collects and shares "voice consumption" data but the privacy policy does not explain what this means.

"I think, in many cases, privacy policies are written in a way that's deliberately confusing and it's not clear for consumers," Mr Blakkarly said.

The Choice list isn't definitive, and generally serves to highlight the lack of transparency around data collection and sharing among connected cars.

But having a car that isn't connected doesn't mean your data isn't collected, either.

Car makers that don't yet sell connected cars in Australia may still be collecting and sharing customer data gathered in other ways, Katharine Kemp, a privacy law expert at the University of New South Wales, said.

"There are many vehicles without connected services available in Australia, and manufacturers who don't offer connected services can still engage in concerning practices with customer data."

The findings of the Choice investigation are similar to those of the US-based Mozilla Foundation, which last year found 25 car brands collected customer data ranging from facial expressions to sexual activity and where and how people drive.

Cars were a "privacy nightmare on wheels" and "the official worst category of products for privacy" the foundation said it had ever reviewed.

How long has this been going on for?

The rate of car-data collection is accelerating as high-end internet-connected features make their way into more affordable models.

The tipping point happened about two years ago, Mr Blakkarly said.

"But it's ubiquitous now. It's across the range. It's in all the vehicles that are coming out."

Choice investigated car-data privacy after an "avalanche" of responses to a story published earlier this year about a Queensland man who backed out of purchasing a Toyota ute after learning about the company's data collection practices.

Toyota collects and shares vehicle location and driver behaviour data, including scoring a driver's acceleration, braking and cornering behaviour during each trip.

Many privacy policies gave car brands the option of sharing data with insurers, Mr Blakkarly said.

"We don't have evidence of insurers in Australia purchasing this information.

"I'm not sure it's been happening here, but it's certainly something we could be seeing in the not-too-distant future."

How do I disable my car's data collection?

If you use an app for your car, head into the app's settings, and look for any sort of data sharing options, usually named "data privacy" or "data usage".

Where possible, opt out of sharing any data with third parties, and see if you can disable GPS location tracking when not in use for navigation.

Be cautious about connecting your phone to your car's infotainment system. Limit the permissions you grant the car's system.

The process for deleting any data collected is unique to most car models and types.

The free online resource Privacy4Cars amassed step-by-step delete instructions for tens of thousands of vehicles, whose settings often differ by model, make, year and optional extras.

The website covers the US, Canada, UK and the EU, so some Australian models may not be on it, site founder Andrea Amico said.

"You guys have a thing called Holden which I'd never heard of before," he said.

"[Privacy4Cars] is not a perfect tool, but it's a hell of a lot better than what you have otherwise, which is trying to figure it out by yourself or asking your dealer."

Are governments and car buyers concerned about this?

Awareness of how much data cars collect is growing sharply.

Last month the US moved to ban a huge array of Chinese-made cars over fears the Chinese government could spy on their drivers.

Mr Amico said the "underlying data" gathered by Chinese-made cars was the same as other car brands, but there was a higher potential for misuse.

"Commercial surveillance is one thing, but the shadow gets much darker when you have government surveillance."

The Privacy4Cars page has seen a big uptick in traffic in the past two to three months, he said.

About three in four Australians disagree or strongly disagree with video or audio recordings from inside a car being collected by car companies, according to a nationally representative Choice survey conducted in June 2024.

Domestic violence support services are also increasingly concerned.

For years, the Women's Service Network has been aware of perpetrators using connected cars to track those who are trying to escape them, but was reluctant to speak publicly on the topic until now, CEO Karen Bentley said.

"We have to balance between educating people who might be experiencing abuse versus educating people who might choose to use [surveillance technology] to abuse.

"But there's been nearly a dozen articles about connected cars in 2024. The horse has bolted now."

She said a woman who fled an abusive relationship with three children and few belongings found her perpetrator easily tracked her down to each high-security refuge she visited. Staff eventually realised the man was using anti-theft technology inside the woman's car.

"We'll certainly be starting to do some training around [connected car data privacy] for frontline workers and shelters and refuges," Ms Bentley said.

"Perhaps we need to be thinking of cars as like phones, like GPS devices."

California recently introduced legislation requiring car makers selling internet-connected cars to do more to protect domestic abuse survivors, including enabling drivers to easily turn off location access from inside the vehicle.

Last year, a woman unsuccessfully sued Tesla, alleging the company failed to act after she repeatedly complained that her husband was stalking and harassing her using the car maker's technology, despite a restraining order.

"Cars that we let into Australia have got to meet basic safety standards," Ms Bentley said.

"Data privacy needs to be included in those standards."

Is this data collection legal?

Yes. Australian privacy law is based on the "notice and consent" model, where consumers make individual privacy decisions about their personal information.

Car makers are generally free to use your data as long as they give notice in their privacy policies.

The Privacy Act was drafted in 1988, long before internet-connected devices.

"The deficiencies in a 'notice and consent' approach to data privacy regulation are quite evident when it comes to connected vehicles," Dr Kemp, from UNSW, said.

"Privacy notices can be lacking in key information or definitions. And 'consent' can be quite fictional when defaults are set to less privacy and there is limited ability to opt out."

A review of Australian privacy law by the Attorney-General's Department released last year recommended the Act be amended to include an objective test to determine whether the collection and sharing of data was "reasonable in the circumstances".

The federal government introduced long-awaited privacy law reforms last month, but did not include the proposed "fair and reasonable" test.

Dr Kemp said this was a mistake.

"A 'fair and reasonable' test for data practices may be better able to address the information and power imbalances that exist between car manufacturers and consumers."

Choice's Mr Blakkarly also backed a "fair and reasonable" test.

"[It would mean] companies can't go and just write the rules themselves and say, 'Well, it's written somewhere online in a 10,000-word privacy policy, so we can do whatever we want.'

"Privacy law reform is really what's needed here, but in the meantime do your own research and opt-out where you can."

Motor vehicle industry peak body the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) represents most of the car brands named in the Choice report.

A spokesperson told the ABC its members collected and shared data legally.

"FCAI members are committed to maintaining high standards with respect to consumer data protection and privacy, in line with relevant laws," the spokesperson said.

"The utilisation of data in vehicles, including through connected and autonomous vehicles, provide consumers with benefits through improvements in safety, performance and navigation as well as supporting general user experience and servicing improvements.

"The FCAI and its members will continue to engage proactively with government and other stakeholders regarding [the privacy law reforms]."

Calls Grow for Bill Gates’ Arrest

 Calls Grow for Bill Gates’ Arrest After He Admits Using India as a ‘Kind of Laboratory’ to Test Vaccines
Frank Bergman
December 8, 2024

Billionaire Bill Gates has provoked a widespread and escalating backlash after he admitted that he’s been using India as a “kind of laboratory” to test his “vaccines” and conduct other experiments on Indian citizens.

Gates made the remarks during a recent interview with fellow Jeffrey Epstein-linked billionaire Reid Hoffman.

The Microsoft co-founder gloated during the interview that he uses India as “a kind of laboratory to try things.”

Gates claims that his experiments on Indians will ensure that people are “better off” in the future.

“And it’s kind of a laboratory to try things that then when you prove them out in India you can take to other places,” Gates told Hoffman, the founder of LinkedIn.

“And so, our biggest non-U.S. office for the [Gates Foundation] is in, is in India.

“And the most number of pilot rollout things we’re doing anywhere in the world are with partners in India.”

The comments from Gates have triggered outrage on social media.

People have been flooding X to blast Gates for using human beings as guinea pigs, according to Natural News.

Many have started calling for Gates’ arrest and accuse the billionaire of committing “crimes against humanity.”

“Arrest Bill Gates for crimes against humanity,” Liz Churchill (@liz_churchill10) declared in a post in X.

Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer is also highly active in India.

In India, rules and regulations are far more relaxed.

Pfizer tests deadly, experimental drugs on the Indian people.

India is used as a testing ground before vaccines are rolled out for public use throughout the West.

“If your governments weren’t under the influence of the World Economic Forum’s young global leaders, they would never have opposed government agencies conducting their own clinical trials for new medicines entering the country,” “OurVoicesMatter” (@OV_Matter) posted in response to Gates’s remarks.

“Just look at what happened with Pfizer when India proposed conducting their own trials.”

Another X user noted how casually and openly Gates talks about his eugenics agenda.

“Treating a whole country as a testing ground shows a complete lack of respect for its people,” they said.

“Seriously, why do they let this lunatic do this stuff??” asked another about Gates.

“He’s not a doctor!” they added.

“He’s some psycho egomaniac that for some reason some clowns listen to.”

“Is he saying that there are so many Indians that it doesn’t matter, or that their lives are worth less?” wrote another.

“If he is, that is actual racism, as opposed to the bigotry that is normally labeled as racism in the media etc.”

Another argued that India has been is being ravaged and raped by multinational corporations and Western governments for profit.

In a post on X,  “shashi kusuma” (@ShashiKusuma) said:

“Although there have been great strides made in the last few years on the infrastructure and economic front and especially in the space and tech front, and Despite conventional PR, India has become a free for all for thugs and free for all gunda Raj due to the loss of any sense of long term vision based on fundamentals, loss of identity, loss of sovereignty, with too many home grown enemies (portrayed as social justice warriors fighting for democracy) amplified by outside influences that are working hard to Balkanize and destroy the civilization piece meal.”

“This is yet another example of such debauchery.”

UK tax incentives to euthanize elderly !!!

UK Government Offers Huge Tax Incentives to Citizens Who Euthanize Elderly Relatives If ‘Assisted Suicide’ Legalized
Frank Bergman
Dec 8, 2024

As the UK’s socialist government advances plans to roll out the globalist eugenics agenda by euthanizing citizens, details are emerging about the huge tax incentives that would be offered to families if they euthanize their elderly relatives.

Last week, the UK’s “assisted suicide” bill passed its second reading as it edges closer to being legalized.

The UK is following the example of Canada and other European nations which have already rapidly descended down the slippery slope of euthanasia.

Like the UK’s “assisted dying law” proposal promises, other countries also started out by limiting euthanasia to terminally ill patients with no other option.

However, all of these nations have since relaxed their laws other time and now use “assisted suicide” to euthanize citizens who have become a burden on the socialized system.

Canada first legalized its Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) program in 2016 to supposedly allow terminally ill patients an option to die on their own terms.

Yet, in just eight years, the Canadian government is already using MAiD to fulfill a eugenics agenda by euthanizing citizens who are poor, mentally ill, disabled, or otherwise drain public resources.

Now, reports are emerging from the UK that seniors could help their family members avoid huge taxes on their inheritance if they are euthanized before they reach 75.

Under the far-left Labour Party government’s scheme, citizens who live beyond 75 could be leaving their relatives with six-figure tax bills when they die.

However, those who sign up for “assisted suicide” before their 75th birthday would avoid leaving their family with a huge tax bill.

“The six-figure tax problem looming over Labour’s assisted dying law,” the Telegraph reports.

“Terminally ill pensioners could end their lives earlier to spare loved ones?six-figure tax bills?under assisted dying legislation, experts have warned.”

It comes as the recently elected ruling Labour Party ramps up taxes on citizens.

The government demands that citizens pay income taxes on pension funds inherited from deceased relatives over the age of 75.

However, pensions “are passed on free of income tax if the person dies before 75 years old.”

But if someone dies after age 75, “their beneficiaries have to pay income tax on what they receive, which could be up to 45pc.”

The obvious problem is that it creates massive financial incentives for some to choose – or be pressured into – “assisted suicide” before they reach the age of 75.

“If assisted dying becomes legal,?however, it could leave someone close to that age with an agonizing choice between prolonging their life or saving their family hundreds of thousands of pounds,” the newspaper notes.

“Pensions specialist, Andrew Tully, said that the potential law change presented an additional consideration in what was already a ‘cliff-edge situation.’”

The Telegraph breaks down the math behind the tax incentives:

    For example, if someone died aged 75 with £500,000 in their pension pot, the person inheriting it could pay £225,000 in income tax?if they took it as a lump sum.

    However, if the deceased had passed away any time before their 75th birthday, this tax bill would be reduced to zero.

Andrew Tully, of Nucleus Financial, said it was “yet another consideration” for people at the end of their lives.

“With pensions, there’s a cut-off age where death before age 75 is treated more generously tax-wise compared to deaths on or after age 75,” Tully said.

“This is a cliff-edge situation and a few days either way could have a significant financial impact.

“In some cases, it can be hundreds of thousands of pounds.

“When someone is terminally ill, consideration of tax and what money is passed on already adds extra stress, especially where complex family dynamics are involved.

“They’re at the end of their life, but at the same time are worried about providing for those they’ll leave behind.”

Mike Ambery of UK pension firm Standard Life warns that such incentives could influence a person’s decision to “choose” euthanasia.

“We are yet to fully understand how the assisted dying legislation will work in practice, however, it is clearly vital that we create a system whereby wider financial considerations should not influence an individual’s decision,” Ambery told the Telegraph.

“In future, assisted dying will need to be a factor in the legal consideration of a multitude of financial circumstances, including lump sum death payments and estate planning.”

Rather unsurprisingly, the socialist government stands to benefit from citizens dying younger as it would relieve the dreaded burden on the state-funded pension system.

mRNA Injections turn vaxxed bodies into vaccine factories

mRNA Injections Turn Bodies of Covid-Vaxxed into ‘Vaccine Factories,’ Study Warns
Frank Bergman
December 7, 2024

A disturbing new study has revealed that the bodies of people who received Covid mRNA injections have become “vaccine factories.”

The researchers behind the study determined that “Injected individuals may produce variable amounts of spike protein for variable durations of time.”

The chilling peer-reviewed study was co-authored by world-renowned American cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough.

The study’s paper was published in the prestigious Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

The researchers detail the genetic-modification mechanisms of the Covid mRNA “vaccines.”

They conclude by calling for a global ban on administering the injections.

The research was conducted via analysis of data and reports reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The data and reports were previously used to license the Pfizer Covid shots for public use.

The data was attained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

However, the study uncovered alarmingly incomplete testing during the injection’s development.

In the “Conclusion” section of the study’s paper, the researchers write:

“For any other medicinal product, the regulatory submission would have been considered incomplete and most probably rejected.

“Therefore, a moratorium on the use of Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines and boosters should be enacted at minimum, but ideally, they should be removed from the market and their use in humans should be stopped.

“It should be the responsibility of the pharmaceutical industry, not independent scientists, to determine whether a medical intervention is safe.

“Based upon Pfizer/BioNTech’s data, safety of their COVID-19 modRNA vaccine has not been proven.”

The researchers began by describing the pathologies of the mRNA “vaccine.”

They note that mRNA (messenger RNA) would be more accurately referred to as modified messenger RNA or modRNA.

The researchers also discuss the alternative adenovirus vector vaccines.

They effectively describe the mRNA shots as genetic manipulation technology.

The study focused on the Pfizer mRNA vaccine (as it analyzed the Pfizer documents).

However, the researchers note that the genetic modification mechanisms would assumably apply to the Moderna mRNA vaccines as well as the Astra Zeneca and Johnson & Johnson adenovirus vector vaccines.

In the “Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 Vaccine” section of the paper, the researchers explain:

“Traditional vaccines contain a target antigen at known concentrations from the pathogen (which can be live attenuated, inactivated, or a subunit of the pathogen) in conjunction with an adjuvant.

“Together the antigen and adjuvant produce an immune response.

“This is not the case with the COVID-19 modRNA (e.g. Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna), and the adenovirus vector (e.g. Astra Zeneca) vaccines.

“These newer ‘vaccines’ are similar to a ‘prodrug’ as they use the body’s own cells to produce the viral spike protein in vivo at levels that vary greatly.

“Prodrugs have no intrinsic activity to elicit a pharmacological response (in this case formation of antibodies) on their own, but give instructions to the ribosomes on how to produce the ‘active drug’ (i.e., spike protein).

“Pfizer/BioNTech’s modRNA vaccines have a pronounced pharmacological phase that is then followed by an immunological phase to produce the immune response.”

The researchers also highlight that regulators misleadingly classify this exotic technology as a “vaccine” and not a gene therapy.

Because of this misclassification, the injections skirted the regulatory guidelines for gene therapy products.

In the “Regulatory Guidelines for RNA Therapeutics” section, they write:

“…the COVID-19 modRNA vaccines are not classified as gene therapy products, whereas an mRNA vaccine against a non-infectious disease such as cancer is not classified as a mRNA vaccine, but as a gene therapy product.

“Therefore, nucleic acid vaccines against infectious diseases were specifically excluded from regulatory guidelines for gene therapy products.

“This has caused the WHO 2005 guidelines to be used for the nonclinical assessment of the COVID-19 modRNA vaccines.

“It is a regulatory requirement for manufacturers of a gene therapy product to determine the structure, concentration, and biodistribution of the protein that has been coded for produced in-vivo.

“However, that was not the case for Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT162b2, as it was misclassified as a traditional vaccine.”

The researchers explain that the injections effectively make the bodies of the injected “vaccine factories.”

As a result, the “efficiency” of the various bodies in producing the Covid spike protein is variable.

In the “Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 Vaccine” section, they note:

“Injected individuals may produce variable amounts of spike protein for variable durations of time based on their genetics, age, hormonal and nutritional state, athletic condition, and batch of vaccine they receive.”

Research into this fact has not been conducted.

This type of research would likely need to be conducted on every single person who received the gene therapy “vaccine” because the effects are tailored to the individual’s own biological profile.

In the “Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 Vaccine” section, the researchers add:

“Studies to investigate these factors were never performed in the preclinical and clinical phases of development.

“Therefore, BNT162b2 is not like any other vaccine that has ever been used successfully.

“The innate immune response is initially targeted against the spike protein, which is bound to the vaccinee’s own cells rather than to the invading pathogen.”

Vaccine makers did not conduct safety studies on the spike proteins produced by the vaccinated individual’s bodies.

“By not performing pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of the encoded spike protein produced from the modRNA, which was already known to be toxic via natural SARS-CoV-2 infection, the regulatory submission is incomplete.

“Thus, the nonclinical safety studies were designed to provide data that was insufficient for such a new type of ‘vaccine’.”

In addition, Pfizer did not study where these spike proteins ended up in the bodies of recipients.

In the “Toxicology Studies Extracted from Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT162b2 Module 2.4. Nonclinical Overview” section, they write:

“Pfizer/BioNTech had no idea how much of the spike protein is generated in vivo, or where it subsequently distributes within the human body.

“Moreover, Pfizer/BioNTech assumed that the modRNA vaccine resides at the injection site, concluding there is no need to measure the spike protein in the blood.

“This conclusion is incorrect based upon Pfizer/BioNTech’s own biodistribution study data that appeared following the FDA emergency use authorization, in which it was demonstrated that LNPs were distributed to a variety of tissues likely mediated via LNPs entering the bloodstream.

However, Pfizer did study the biodistribution of a marker protein, luciferase, which the shots also encoded for.

Yet, this was apparently not conclusive to determine spike protein biodistribution.

In the “Toxicology Studies Extracted from Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT162b2 Module 2.4. Nonclinical Overview” section, they add:

“Although no traditional pharmacokinetic or biodistribution studies were performed with BNT162b2 specifically, or the final modRNA/LNP formulation used clinically, Pfizer/BioNTech did conduct a nonclinical study in which biodistribution was assessed using luciferase as a surrogate marker protein since it was assumed that changing the coding sequence of the mRNA was unlikely to affect its biodistribution or physicochemical properties.

“However, differences between the luciferase reporter RNA and BNT162b2 nucleosides (i.e., modRNA) could potentially affect stability or persistence of the measured signal since spike protein has a longer half-life than luciferase.”

During regular vaccine trials, testing for genotoxic (damage to genetics) and carcinogenic (cancer-causing potential) is conducted.

However, genotoxic and carcinogenic testing were carried out for the Covid mMA injections.

In the “Toxicology Studies Extracted from Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT162b2 Module 2.4. Nonclinical Overview” section, the researchers state:

“Although BNT162b2 might not expected to have genotoxic or carcinogenic potential, the encoded spike protein that is produced does.

“Therefore, these studies should have been performed. They were not.”

Interestingly, the researchers also found several holes in Pfizer’s testing.

Specifically, information was missing regarding toxicological studies on the Covid injections.

The researchers add:

“Also, Section 2.4.4.6. Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity shows that these studies were performed using Wistar Han™ rats, a rodent species that is totally inappropriate for toxicology studies.

“A more relevant species should have been chosen for the toxicity studies on the developing pups.

“In addition, the distribution of the spike protein in the tissues of both the mother and pups would have provided much-needed information as to whether BNT162b2 is suitable to administer to pregnant women and mothers who are breastfeeding.

“Furthermore, male rats were not studied, and data on male fertility is unknown. Moreover, it has recently been documented that the modRNA may predispose otherwise healthy individuals to cancer.”