Maahantuomme ravintolisiä USA: sta, FDA: n tiukasti valvomilta markkinoilta.
Visionamme on tuottaa oikeaa tietoa terveyden uhkatekijöistä.
Suurimpana ongelmana länsimaissa on jatkuva, yksipuolisesti liian hapan ruokavalio, jota elimistö ei kykene riittävästi puskuroimaan, vaan koko aineenvaihdunta -järjestelmä joutuu tekemään työtä happamuutta vastaan.
Lopulta elimistö alkaa tulehtua ja saavuttaa potilaan huomaamatta, jatkuvan tulehduksellisen tilan.
Video: Pfizer’s “Secret” Report on the Covid Vaccine. Beyond Manslaughter. The Evidence is Overwhelming. The Vaccine Should Be Immediately Withdrawn Worldwide
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us onInstagram, TwitterandFacebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
First published on May 17, 2022
***
The following video interview with Prof. Michel Chossudovskypertains to the Confidential Pfizer Report released as part of a Freedom of Information (FOI) procedure.
The report is a bombshell. The vaccine was launched in mid-December 2020. By the end of February 2021, “Pfizer had already received more than 1,200 reports of deaths allegedly caused by the vaccineandtens of thousands of reported adverse events, including 23 cases of spontaneous abortions out of 270 pregnancies and more than 2,000 reports of cardiac disorders.”
This Confidential Pfizer Reportprovides data on deaths and adverse events recorded by Pfizer from the outset of the vaccine project in December 2020 to the end of February 2021, namelya very short period (at most two and a half months).
The data from mid-December 2020 to the end of February 2021 unequivocally confirms “Manslaughter”. Based on the evidence, Pfizer had the responsibility to immediately cancel and withdraw the “vaccine”.
Pfizer’s Worldwide marketing of the Covid-19 Vaccine beyond February 28th, 2021, is no longer an “Act of Manslaughter”. It is a Criminal Act: From a legal standpoint it is as an “Act of Murder” applied Worldwide to a target population of 8 billion people.
What is contained in Pfizer’s “confidential” report is detailed evidence on the impacts of the “vaccine” on mortality and morbidity. This data which emanates from the “Horse’s Mouth”can now be usedto confront as well formulate legal procedures against Big Pharma, the governments, the WHO and the media.
Video:Interview withCaroline Mailloux, Lux Media: Prof. Michel Chossudovskyon the “Secret” Pfizer Report Puts Fortha Strategy and Legal Procedure to Confront Big Pharma with a view to Withdrawing the Covid-19 Vaccine Worldwide
[Click upper title and right corner to enter fullscreen]
Translations in several languages are envisaged. The book is available in print form in Japanese. 仕組まれたコロナ危機:「世界の初期化」を目論む者たち
As a means to reaching out to millions of people worldwide whose lives have been affected by the corona crisis, we have decided in the course of the next few weeks to distributethe eBook for FREE.
Can we trust a Big Pharma vaccine conglomerate which pleaded guilty to criminal charges bythe US Department of Justice (DoJ)including“fraudulent marketing”and“felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act”?
National health authorities claim that the Covid-19 “vaccine” will save lives. That’s a lie.
There is a worldwide upward trend of vaccine deaths and injuries. Theofficial figures(April 3, 2022) point to approximately:
69,053 Covid-19 injection related deaths and 10,997,085 injuries for the EU, US and UK Combined for a population of 830 million people
“Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. … less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.(emphasis added)
This Confidential Pfizer Report released as part of a Freedom of Information (FOI) procedure provides data on deaths and adverse events recorded by Pfizer from the outset of the vaccine project in December 2020 to the end of February 2021, namelya very short period (at most two and a half months).
In a twisted irony, the data revealed in this “insider report” refutes the official vaccine narrative peddled by the governments and the WHO. It also confirms the analysis of numerous medical doctors and scientists who have revealed the devastating consequences of the mRNA “vaccine”.
What is contained in Pfizer’s “confidential” report is detailed evidence on the impacts of the “vaccine” on mortality and morbidity. This data which emanates from the “Horse’s Mouth”can now be usedto confront as well formulate legal procedures against Big Pharma, the governments, the WHO and the media.
In a Court of Law, the evidence contained in this Big Pharma confidential report (coupled with the data on deaths and adverse events compiled by the national authorities in the EU, UK and US)isirrefutable: because it is their data and their estimates and not ours.
Bear in mind: it’s data which is based on reported and recorded cases, which constitute a small percentage of the actual number of vaccine related deaths and adverse events.
This is a de factoMea Culpa on the part of Pfizer. #Yes it is a Killer Vaccine
Pfizer was fully aware that the mRNA vaccine which it is marketing Worldwide would result in a wave of mortality and morbidity. This is tantamount to acrime against humanity on the part of Big Pharma.
Pfizer knew from the outset that it was a killer vaccine.
It is also a Mea Culpa and Treason on the part of corrupt national governments Worldwidewhich are being threatened and bribed by Big Pharma.
No attempt has been made by the governments to call for the withdrawal of the killer vaccine.
People are told that the vaccine is intended to save lives.
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The original source of this article is Lux Media and Global Research
Nya Dagbladet publicerade i förra veckan ett dokument som förefaller vara läckt från den högprofilerade regeringskopplade amerikanska tankesmedjan RAND Corporation. Dokumentet skall enligt uppgifter till tidningen härröra ifrån tysk underrättelsetjänst, uppgifter som inte har kunnat bekräftas.
Någon seriös oberoende granskning, som på ett övertygande sätt talar emot att dokumentet skulle vara äkta, har i skrivande stund inte kommit redaktionen till kännedom. Under gårdagen kickade Facebookscensurav tidningens engelskspråkiga version av ursprungsartikeln in och begränsar kraftigt, alternativt helt förhindrar, att informationen om det läckta dokumentet kan delas och spridas mellan användare på plattformen.
Facebook har inte gjort någon egen bedömning av dokumentet eller Nya Dagbladets publicering. Inte heller den ”oberoende faktagranskaren” som Facebookhänvisartill och motiverar sin censur med har granskat dokumentet, utan använder den simpla förevändningen att dokumentet är ”falskt” eftersom den organisation som dokumentet ska ha läckt ifrån, dvs RAND, själva påstår att det är falskt.
Annonser:
En simplare form av ”faktagranskning” får man leta efter.
Ett något seriösare försökhar det brittiska faktagranskningsföretagetLogicallygjort och de kommer under morgondagen att publicera sin granskning av Nya Dagbladets publicering.
Nya Dagbladet kontaktades under dagen av gruppen som hävdade att man hade ”bevis” för att dokumentet var falskt. När redaktionen bad om att få ta del av underlaget fick vi följande svar:
”Vårt underlag finns i rapporten. Det finns flertalet stavfel och grammatiska fel, men även sakfel så som att hänvisa till ”The Congress and the Senate” och till Covid-lockdowns som aldrig skedde i USA. Dessutom hänvisar sidan med rättigheter till en URL-länk som om den producerats för en offentlig rapport, trots att denna enligt uppgift ska var konfidentiell. Det indikerar att det endast kopierats in”.
Vad man hittills presenterat förefaller snarare vara indikationer i olika riktningar vilket man kan förstås kan spekulera kring.
Huruvida USA skulle haft nedstängningar under covid-19 är en definitionsfråga. Omfattande restriktioner kan ses som en form av nedstängning vilket skedde i stor skala. Något som USA Today sammanfattar i dennaartikel.
Vi har i våra publiceringar varit tydligamed att dokumentenförefallervara fråga om läckta dokument från organisationen ifråga. Vi har ingenstans påstått att vi har bevis för dess fullständiga autenticitet eller ursprung. Vi gjorde bedömningen att dokumentet, sett till sitt innehåll och sin utformning, inte gick att avfärda som en fabrikation och tyckte det var nyhetsvärdigt med den tidigare nämnda reservationen att vi inte kan gå i god för dess fullständiga autenticitet. Något vi alltså varit klara med.
RAND själva har inte kommenterat vad i rapporten som inte stämmer eller på vilket sätt dokumentet skulle vara falskt. Sättet man avfärdat dokumentet stärker tvärtom snarare indikationerna i riktning mot dess äkthet. Om dokumentet är autentiskt skulle en organisation som RAND under inga omständigheter själva kunna medge att det härrör från dem, särskilt inte mot bakgrund av den graverande natur som det aktuella dokumentet har. Någon utomstående seriös granskning av dokumentet och på vilket sätt det skulle varit falskt har vi hittills inte tagit del av.
Det skulle förvåna om Logically`s ”rapport” innehåller några substantiella bevis annat än spekulativa indicier. Samtidigt ligger det självfallet i tidningens intresse att dokumentet får en seriös och utomstående granskning och att sanningen om dokumentets ursprung kommer fram till sist.
Frågan är snarastom tveksamma aktörer, som ”Lead Stories” och den tämligen anonyma gruppen ”Logically”, har varken kapacitet eller intresse av att utreda dylika frågor, när ett positivt utfall av utredningen skulle ligga den sittande makten till en milt uttryckt stor last.
In
January, 1944, the newly reconstituted German Sixth Army found itself
in an operationally cataclysmic situation in the southern bend of the
Dnieyper River, in the area of Krivoi Rog and Nikopol. The Germans
occupied a dangerous salient, jutting out precariously into the Red
Army’s lines. Vulnerable on two awkward flanks, and facing an enemy
with superiority in manpower and firepower, any general worth his
salt would have sought to withdraw as soon as possible. In this case,
however, Hitler insisted that the Wehrmacht hold the salient, because
the region was Germany’s last remaining source of manganese - a
mineral crucial for making high quality steel.
A
year prior, in the opening weeks of 1943, Hitler had intervened in
another, more famous battle, forbidding the previous incarnation of
the Sixth Army from breaking out of a pocket forming around it at
Stalingrad. Prohibited from withdrawing, the Sixth was annihilated
wholesale.
In
both of these cases, there was a clash between pure military prudence
and broader political aims and needs. In 1943, there was neither a
compelling military nor political reason to keep the 6th Army in the
pocket at Stalingrad - political intervention in military decision
making was both senseless and disasterous. In 1944, however, Hitler
(however difficult it is to admit it) had a valid argument. Without
manganese from the Nikopol area, German war production was doomed. In
this case, political intervention was perhaps warranted. Leaving an
army in a vulnerable salient is bad, but so is running out of
manganese.
These
two tragic fates of the Sixth Army illustrate the salient issue
today: how do we parse the difference between military and political
decision making? More specifically, to what do we attribute the
shocking Russian decision to withdraw from the west bank of the
Dnieper in Kherson oblast, after annexing it just a few months ago?
I
would like to parse through this issue. First off, one cannot deny
that the withdrawal is politically a significant humiliation
for Russia. The question becomes, however, whether this sacrifice
was necessary on military or political grounds, and what it may
signify about the future course of the conflict.
As
I see it, the withdrawal from west bank Kherson must be driven by one
of the four following possibilities:
The
Ukrainian Army has defeated the Russian Army on the west bank and
driven it back across the river.
Russia
is setting a trap in Kherson.
A
secret peace agreement (or at least ceasefire) has been negotiated
which includes giving Kherson back to Ukraine.
Russia
has made a politically embarrassing but militarily prudent
operational choice.
Let
us simply run through these four and examine them in sequence.
Possibility
1: Military Defeat
The
recapture of Kherson is being fairly celebrated by Ukrainians as a
victory. The question is just what kind of victory it is -
political/optical, or military? It becomes trivially obvious that it
is the first sort. Let’s examine a few facts.
First
off, as recently as the morning of November 9 - hours before the
withdrawal was announced - some Russian war correspondents were
expressing skepticism about the withdrawal rumors because Russia’s
forward defensive lines were
completely intact. There was no semblance of crisis among Russian
forces in the region.
Secondly,
Ukraine was not executing any intense offensive efforts in the region
at the time the withdrawal began, and Ukrainian officials expressed
skepticismthat the withdrawal was even real. Indeed, the idea
that Russia was laying a trap originates with Ukrainian officials who
were apparently caught off guard by the withdrawal. Ukraine was not
prepared to pursue or exploit, and advanced
cautiouslyinto the void after Russian soldiers were gone. Even
with Russia withdrawing, they were clearly scared to advance, because
their last few attempts to push through the defenses in the area
became mass casualty events.
Overall,
Russia’s withdrawal was implemented very quickly with minimal
pressure from the Ukrainians - this very fact is the basis of the
idea that it is either a trap or the result of a backroom deal that’s
been concluded. In either case, Russia simply slipped back across the
river without pursuit by the Ukrainians, taking negligible losses and
getting virtually all of their equipment out (so far, a broken down
T90 is the only Ukrainian capture of note). The net score on the
Kherson Front remains a strong casualty imbalance in favor of Russia,
and they once again withdraw without suffering a battlefield defeat
and with their forces intact.
As
for Ares, he has been hard at work in Pavlovka.
While
the world was fixated on the relatively bloodless change of hands in
Kherson, Russia and Ukraine fought a bloody battle for Pavlovka, and
Russia won. Ukraine also attempted to break Russia’s defenses in
the Svatove axis, and was repulsed with heavy casualties. Ultimately,
the main reason to doubt news of a secret deal is the fact that the
war is continuing on all the other fronts - and Ukraine is losing.
This leaves only one option.
Possibility
4: A Difficult Operational Choice
This
withdrawal was subtly signaled shortly after General Surovikin was
put in charge of the operation in Ukraine. In his first press
conference, he signaled dissatisfaction with the Kherson front,
calling the situation “tense and difficult” and alluding to the
threat of Ukraine blowing dams on the Dnieper and flooding the area.
Shortly thereafter, the process of evacuating civilians from Kherson
began.
Here
is what I think Surovikin decided about Kherson.
Kherson
was becoming an inefficient front for Russia because of the
logistical strain of supplying forces across the river with limited
bridge and road capacity. Russia demonstrated that it was capable of
shouldering this sustainment burden (keeping troops supplied all
through Ukraine’s summer offensives), but the question becomes 1)
to what purpose, and 2) for how long.
Ideally,
the bridgehead becomes the launching point for offensive action
against Nikolayev, but launching an offensive would require
strengthening the force grouping in Kherson, which correspondingly
raises the logistical burden of projecting force across the river.
With a very long front to play with, Kherson is clearly one of the
most logistically intensive axes. My guess is that Surovikin took
charge and almost immediately decided he did not want to increase the
sustainment burden by trying to push on Nikolayev.
Therefore,
if an offensive is not going to be launched from the Kherson
position, the question becomes - why hold the position at all?
Politically, it is important to defend a regional capital, but
militarily the position becomes meaningless if one is not going to go
on the offensive in the south.
Let’s
be even more explicit: unless an offensive towards Nikolayev is
planned, the Kherson bridgehead is militarily counterproductive.
While
holding the bridgehead in Kherson, the Dnieper River becomes a
negative force multiplier - increasing the sustainment and logistics
burden and ever threatening to leave forces cut off if Ukraine
succeeds in destroying the bridges or bursting the dam. Projecting
force across the river becomes a heavy burden with no obvious
benefit. But by withdrawing to the east bank, the river becomes a
positive force multiplier by serving as a defensive barrier.
In
the broader operational sense, Surovikin seems to be declining battle
in the south while preparing in the north and in the Donbas. It is
clear that he made this decision shortly after taking command of the
operation - he has been hinting at it for weeks, and the speed and
cleanliness of the withdrawal suggests that it was well planned ,
long in advance. Withdrawing across the river increases the combat
effectiveness of the army significantly and decreases the logistical
burden, freeing resources for other
sectors.
This
fits the overall Russian pattern of making harsh choices about
resource allocation, fighting this war under the simple framework of
optimizing the loss ratios and building the perfect meatgrinder.
Unlike the German Army in the second world war, the Russian army
seems to be freed from political interference to make rational
military decisions.
In
this way, the withdrawal from Kherson can be seen as a sort of
anti-Stalingrad. Instead of political interference hamstringing the
military, we have the military freed to make operational choices even
at the cost of embarrassing the political figures. And this,
ultimately, is the more intelligent - if optically humiliating - way
to fight a war.
Prof. Dolores Cahill: We Are Witnessing the Rollout of Agenda 21’s Depopulation and Undermining of Society
In mid-October, Professor Dolores Cahill spoke with Zeee Media about how the depopulation and infertility program using Covid “vaccines” fits into Agenda 21. They also discussed digital currencies and how Agenda 21’s “demoralisation agenda,” a psychological operation, is used to undermine the rule of law.
During the mid-1990s, Prof. Cahill together with others in the German Max Planck Institutesdeveloped high-throughput protein array or “high protein content chips.”
“We can show that a lot of antibodies used in diagnostic tests, to diagnose diseases like cancer and autoimmune diseases were wrong. And then I started to get a lot of pushback because it meant that the manufacturers of the diagnostic tests – which were shown to be inaccurate – couldn’t sell their products anymore,” Prof. Cahill told Maria Zeee during the interview (see below).
What Prof. Cahill and associates showed is that a lot of people who were diagnosed with cancer and autoimmune diseases didn’t actually have the disease they were diagnosed with.
The next discovery Prof. Cahill made was that babies were dying 2 and 4 months after being injected with “vaccines” but no one was “stopping it.”
She went on to advise the Irish government and the European Union and during this time attempted to alert academic, diagnostic, pharmaceutical and government officials to vaccine adverse events and treatments of serious diseases. “All [of] my career has been trying to give the information that you can treat these so-called serious diseases by simple lifestyle changes: reducing stress [and] good nutrition including vitamins.”
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 newsin your inbox…
Maria Zeee: Uncensored: Prof. Dolores Cahill – We’re in the Mass Killing Phase of Agenda 21 & What People Can Do, 19 October 2022 (68 mins)
Agenda 21
In the video above Prof. Cahill said Covid-19 was the eighth planned “pandemic.” “There were many of these before including the ones that were stopped by Professor Wodarg,” she said.
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg exposed and was instrumental in ending the 2009 Swine Flu Scandal. His actions resulted in an investigation by the European Parliament “to look into the issue of ‘falsified pandemic’ that was declared by WHO in June 2009 on the advice of its group of academic experts, SAGE, many of whose members have been documented to have intense financial ties to the same pharmaceutical giants such as GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Novartis, who benefit from the production of drugs and untested H1N1 vaccines.”
In 2002, when the first so-called coronavirus pandemic – that never was – occurred Prof. Cahill was “looking at it in real-time.” She was aware at the time that the side effects of the vaccines were all the areas that governments and the European Union were financially investing in.
“If you inject people, particularly children, with poisons – like mercury and aluminium – the toxic effects … are allergies, autoimmune disease, intestinal dysfunction like Crohn’s disease … infertility. Mercury and aluminium are also neurotoxins so you have neuro-cognitive impairment that shows in Alzheimer’s… [or] autism,” she said.
“When I started studying the health issues – and I knew that a lot of what was going on in science in the 1990s was inaccurate – and then when the coronavirus came, the initial one in 2002/3, I started then studying what was happening [beyond health issues] because I knew there was prevention and treatment – even then, 20 years ago – and also vitamins.
“Then I started looking into the World Health Organisation and how they were implementing [Agenda 21] and the control of the media. Also, I was also aware of CIA documents and United Nations documents of how they were going to intimidate people who spoke up, particularly experts and scientists.”
Prof. Cahill explained that a 1971 book titled ‘None Dare Call It Conspiracy’ laid out Agenda 21. And a 1992 book titled ‘The Committee of 300’ describes, exactly, the poisoning agenda she had become aware of. It also names the people involved in the conspiracy at that time.
Agenda 21 is the United Nations Agenda for the 21stcentury. It was published in 1992 and covers the period up to 2099. “So, it’s the agenda for this entire century … You have Agenda 2020, Agenda 2030, 2040, 2050. And what is behind Agenda 21 is a detailed roadmap for every year from 1992 through the century,” Prof. Cahill said. “They are basically planning, and are implementing, the destruction of each area of our society from within.”
The plan is very detailed. It includes. for example. police turning on their vehicle sirens at random times or reducing street lighting at night with the aim to increase the levels of anxiety or feelings of insecurity within people.
There was a stock market collapse on 17/18 September 2019. “I knew that was the trigger event for the next pandemic,” Prof. Cahill said, “and that was a month before Event 201 … I was watching Event 201 in real-time.”
At the end of 2019, Prof. Cahill had a voluntary role representing Ireland as vice chair of the European Union’s innovative medicine initiative. “They were pushing money into mRNA vaccinations as part of an EU funding mechanism in January/February 2020. And from the inside [of the EU], I was given the information around vitamins and that it was not necessary, which was not edict.”
Prof. Cahill then asked the Central Statistics Office of Ireland how many people had died of Covid-19 up until March 2020. When the statistics office said there had been zero Covid deaths in Ireland and after checking further information through her “network,” Prof. Cahill gave an interview in May 2020 with Computing Forever host Dave Cullen explaining what she had discovered as well as explaining that there was prevention and treatment. The interview went viral.
Depopulation and Infertility
The Agenda for the 21st century will “say a reduction in population but also an increase in infertility that is brought about through these injections,” Prof. Cahill explained. “Twenty/thirty years ago they said the killing years were between 2020 and 2026.”
For this decade, the aim is to vaccinate people in response to a “pandemic” and have coordinated media deception and intimidation. “[The aim is] to make people very unwell to reduce their life expectancy and to kill people. But, and this is why I spoke out, it seems this mRNA [injection] is designed to interfere with fertility in both males and females. So, their plan … is to inject the younger generation … What we don’t know … [is] can they transmit the infertility agent through sexual intercourse,” Prof. Cahill said. Their plan is to have a huge increase in infertility during this century, she said, “their aim is to collapse the number of people” by the end of the century.
There were infertility agents in the tetanus injections for decades, Prof. Cahill said, “and this was highlighted in Africa because they had the army coming into towns and villages over Africa injecting, forcibly … and they only injected tetanus [vaccines] into women ages 14 to age 45.”
The spike protein in the Covid injection acts in a similar way to the tetanus injection in that it seems to attack the lining and the sheath of the uterus. “That’s why there was a lot of clotting and heavy bleeding in people whether they were injected or not,” Prof. Cahill explained.
Combined with the HPV vaccine, the effect is that the body attacks the ovaries so there is a shrivelling of the ovaries in 10-15 years. “The girls that got the HPV vaccine at age 12 are going into early menopause [which also] has an impact on their fertility,” she said.
Life Expectancy of the Vaccinated
In May 2020, during the interview with Dave Cullen on Computing Forever and again a few days later in an interview with Del Bigtree host of The Highwire, Prof. Cahill said that no mRNA injections were ever licensed anywhere in the world until 2020. The reason for this, Prof. Cahill said, was that:
“In some of the animal studies, all of the animals died. But in a longer period after the injection … because it is priming the immune system and it takes months or years for the immune system to activate – all in a bad way – in order to then kill people … and I stand by [what I said in May 2020]. [What I said relates to] the mRNA injections – not all of [the injections] are mRNA.”
She explained that some batches of injections are placebos and others, because of poor mixing of the ingredients in the manufacturing process, may have very little mRNA. “But for people who get the mRNA, as I said in May 2020, that then primes their body to attack itself. It is the immune system that is primed [and] may have homology to where ever the mRNA or the peptide or the protein is in their organs. So, the immune system will attack that organ.”
“They will present to the medical system with unusual symptoms like an enlarged heart or sudden adult death or breathlessness or sepsis.
“What I said [in May 2020] was, for those with the mRNA, the time that they would die would be within 3 years to 5 years after the injection. But it depends then how young they were, how healthy they were, and whether they had other comorbidities.
“So, that, unfortunately, is true. Unfortunately.”
Earlier in the interview, she mentioned the animal trials where all the animals injected with mRNA died. But in some of the animal experiments, only half of the animals died after being injected with mRNA. Prof. Cahill explained that in the animal trials where only 50% of the animals died within six months, the 50% deaths results were because they stopped the experiment and killed the remainder of the animals. If they had kept the animals that survived after six months alive and continued the experiment for a year, then the results would have been that all the animals would have died within the time frame that would have been the equivalent in humans of 3-5 years.
“If people have had multiple injections, there are toxic agents [within the vaccines] that have a different mechanism of killing people. So, the ones we see in Open VAERS, of people who die within the first month … one in four dies within 48 hours. And it probably is that they are dying with a different mechanism, that they are hyper allergic to ingredients that are in the injection like polysorbate 80 … or polyethylene glycol (“PEG”) or SM-102.”
Real Money versus Digital Currency
The Agenda started in a serious way in 1913. Their plan has been implemented, in the background, for about two generations. “In a way, they have really implemented maybe 50% of the Agenda. So, this is a systematic and incremental and a nudge Agenda,” Prof. Cahill said.
Agenda 21, published in 1992, is a continuation of the same Agenda, and part of it is to undermine society from within. It’s a 108-year plan which is being rolled out incrementally so people wouldn’t be aware from one generation to the next that it was happening. One of the main levers is the so-called vaccine and another is the banking system.
The plan incorporates undermining all aspects of society – whether it’s law, lawful policing, the education system, the health system, the regulatory system, the media current affairs, the government or the banking system, Prof, Cahill explained.
“Cash is freedom … If you have money, cash money, you can just buy and sell and you can also earn a living in private. Privacy is very important in the law. And proper money that actually has a value, and cash, is the way that men and women operate under the law, in private … We have an inalienable right to privacy. If you have real money and cash that ensures privacy.”
If you want to undermine the law and undermine society, how do you do that? It can be done through the banking system by interfering with gold-backed money and then attempting to track and trace everybody’s digital transactions, Prof Cahill said.
“And then move from a system where you can have ‘own your assets under the law’ and nobody can trespass on them or interfere with them, to a system where they try [to] transfer all of your assets into their system and they can then cut it off by any means.”
In their digital system, all our assets will no longer belong to us, they will belong to the banking system. So, they will own our assets.
“What we have under this Agenda 21 is an unlawful layer, in the banking system, on top of what we think is the lawful system … Everything they do is to increase fear and to impoverish people.
“This is a multi-generational program … if they can do it in one generation, the generation that is five-year-olds now, in 20/30 years’ time, will think it’s normal that real money and cash isn’t accepted.”
As far as the real money moving to digital currency part of the Agenda is concerned, “they’re [probably] halfway through [implementing it],” Prof. Cahill Said.
The Demoralisation Agenda
“But I think what’s very hopeful,” Prof Cahill said, is “the whole thing is very simple to solve … No one is above the law … and if every man or woman is liable for any criminality they do, under the law, and no one is above the law. Once people realise that we can actually stop this very simply.”
In other words, the solution is to hold each person – doctors, policemen, coroners, judges, and care homeowners – accountable in their personal capacity for what they have or have not done.
By way of example, in Ireland, there is an organisation called the Irish Republican Brotherhood(“IRB”), the oldest political movement in Ireland. “We have reconstituted the [IRB] … and what we’re doing now – we have hundreds of people, thousands of people that are aware to solve all this – we just have to ask people that are paid as judges or regulators or the police: ‘is what you are doing lawful and what is your role?’,” Prof. Cahill said.
She gave an example of 10 care homes in Ireland in January 2021 where people died shortly after being injected with a Covid “vaccine.” The local police constable is paid and has sworn an oath to investigate those deaths.
“We in society have a societal bond and that is that people cannot go around killing people [no matter who you are or the position you hold]. It’s very simple. And who do we pay to ensure people literally do not get away with murder? … When there are mass deaths, like 8 people [in one care home] within 48 hours, we then have to investigate and say ‘well, did the local policeman report that as a suspicious death, did the undertakers report it, did the owners of the care home [report it], did the people we pay, the coroners, did they investigate?’.
“For a coroner or a doctor to put the wrong cause of death on a death cert[ificate], that’s five years in prison for them for one case. That is the law … If a family makes a complaint and the [police] don’t investigate whether the coroner is doing their job, or the people we pay as judges [don’t investigate] – it is the second highest crime of malfeasance, malfeasance in public office and criminal misconduct, for a judge to not investigate that type of crime.”
Why have people so far been unsuccessful in getting the police, for example, to investigate?
How Agenda 21 has undermined the rule of law, for the last generation, is by the courts, police, coroners and pathologists not operating lawfully. “Within Agenda 21 they have a detailed program of analysing the psychology behind the criminal behaviour … [its] what’s called a ‘demoralisation agenda’,” Prof. Cahill said.
They want people to be unsuccessful in stopping criminal behaviour to demoralise populations so they feel “hopeless.” The unsuccessful legal actions of “freedom fighters” is part of the demoralisation agenda to make it look like certain systems will not work.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’État Against Humanity
Bear in mind: it’s data which is based on reported and recorded cases, which constitute a small percentage of the actual number of vaccine related deaths and adverse events. 
