Eric Clapton said that he will not perform anywhere that segregation and discrimination takes place, where proof of vaxxx is required (in other words, not just for people who are vaccinated).
“Unless there is provision made for all people to attend, I reserve the right to cancel the show.”
Clapton shared the statement via the Telegram account of Italian architect and Covid sceptic Robin Monotti. It was accompanied by a link to Clapton’s anti-lockdown collaboration with Van Morrison, Stand and Deliver, in which they sing: “Do you wanna be a free man / Or do you wanna be a slave?”
In May, Clapton shared his negative experiences of receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine through Monotti’s Telegram account, claiming to have experienced “severe” reactions that left him questioning whether he would be able to play the guitar again.
Operation Wake’em Up and XClave Private Towns
Escape the New Normal
Death by COVID Vaxxxes
by Kyle Young
Nearly 11,000 Deaths After COVID Vaccines Reported to CDC, as FDA Adds New Warning to J&J Vaccine
VAERS data released by the CDC showed a total of 493,457 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 10,991 deaths and 48,385 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and July 9, 2021.
this government commissioned study done by Harvard University shows that less than 1% of injuries and deaths from vaccines get reported to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Now for the dirty job that someone has to do… If we assume 100% reporting to VAERS, then the actual number of people has exceeded 1,000,000. And that’s just in the US.
…Hindsight tells me that the reason why the effort to over report the number of deaths from COVID-19 was pursued so vigorously was to distract us from the effect of the coming deaths by the covid vaxxes.
…the number of people who supposedly died from COVID-19 after being fully vaccinated are what the CDC calls breakthrough cases. The total number of cases is 5,492. Reporting of breakthrough cases to the CDC is likely much lower than the reporting of vaccine death and injury to VAERS, but if we assume a very conservative 1% reporting of breakthrough cases, than with 100% reporting we’re looking at well over 100,000 deaths from COVID-19 and over 500,000 total cases among those who have been fully vaxxed.
I don’t think we need any further proof that we’ve been sold a bill of goods about the vaccines instilling immunity or preventing the disease. The vaccines are a very bad joke.
…The entire human population of earth are now serving as guinea pigs in a giant experiment with an unknown outcome - all for the sake of 30 pieces of silver. A guaranteed future patient payload of billions of people is being generated by the toxic jabs and the medical and drug cartels who are now making billions in the process will make billions more caring for all of the vaxx injured people for decades to come. It is indeed, the greatest scam ever perpetrated in the history of the human race.
From Tessa Fights Robots
The Great Reset for Dummies
The practical aim of the Great Reset is to fundamentally restructure the world’s economy and geopolitical relations based on two assumptions: one, that every element of nature and every life form is a part of the global inventory (managed by the allegedly benevolent state, which, in turn, is owned by several suddenly benevolent wealthy people, via technology)—and two, that all inventory needs to be strictly accounted for: be registered in a central database, be readable by a scanner and easily ID’ed, and be managed by AI, using the latest “science.” The goal is to count and then efficiently manage and control all resources, including people, on an unprecedented scale, with unprecedented digital anxiety and precision—all while the masters keep indulging, enjoying vast patches of conserved nature, free of unnecessary sovereign peasants and their unpredictability. The king’s world feels far more predictable and relaxed when the chaos of human subjectivity is contained for good.
Plus, as a potentially lucrative aside, a bunch of these tightly managed “assets” can be also turned into new financial instruments and traded. Game on!
In other words, it’s an “efficient” global feudalism that goes much farther than its medieval brother since the scanner is all-seeing: every person, every mineral, and every berry is digitally tagged and tracked. Under that framework, every peasant has a function that is derived not from the mystery of life, and not from their inner calling—but from AI, the master of efficiency and the servant of the king. Ideally, the peasants can be convinced that it’s good for them (or necessary to be safe, see “contact tracing”) and that this is what progress and happiness are like—but if not, there are other ways, from classic violence to virtual prisons to “morality pills.”
The reform in question is meant to disrupt all areas of life, on a planetary scale: government, international relations, finance, energy, food, medicine, jobs, urban planning, real estate, law enforcement, and human interactions—and it starts with changing the way we think of ourselves and our relationship with the world. Notably, privacy is a huge thorn in the collective eye of our “great resetters”—and—as I am typing this, they are pushing their sweet talking points about how privacy is really an outdated concept—especially when it comes to people’s medical data, sheesh—and that we simply cannot move forward with the bright future if silly people keep clinging to their privacy.
I will briefly go over different elements of this slippery reform in a sec—but to sum it up, the desired end result is a giant, joyless, highly controlled global conveyor of everything and everybody where privacy is tremendously expensive, dissent is unthinkable, and spiritual submission is mandatory. It’s like a 24/7 medicated reality, except the medications are both chemical and digital, and they are reporting you back to the mothership, which can then punish you for bad behavior by, say, blocking your access to certain places or by putting a hold on your digital bank account—perhaps without any human intervention at all.
Thus, on a sensory level—as it relates to money and power—this conveyor is an attempt of the super wealthy to organize and monetize their “assets,” including people—more efficiently than ever before. On a theological level, the initiative is shaped by transhumanism, a formal belief system rooted in a pathological feeling of being repelled by all things natural—and a resulting view of biological forms as defective robots, which are made perfect, serial killer perfect, by merging with machines in a way that redefines the meaning of being alive and defies death itself.
And via the World Economic Forum, we can all be happy owning nothing and eating BUGS, INSECTS ARE YUMMY, SO IS FAKE MEAT, LAB GROWN MEAT AND just reminds me of the Temple of Doom Indiana Jones movie where she says, no thanks, I had bugs for lunch.
Jeremy Hammond:
"Experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19."
Therefore, the CDC argues, if you have already recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection, you should still get a COVID-19 vaccine.
Now, if you paid attention to previous newsletters, you should be able to name that logical fallacy employed by the CDC.
(Cue the Jeopardy! music...)
That's right! It's a non sequitur fallacy: the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Just because scientists do not yet know how long natural immunity lasts does not mean people with natural immunity need to get vaccinated. After all, people with natural immunity are already immune (this is tautological), and so vaccination is unnecessary in order for them to gain immunity (also tautological).
That fact that the CDC is using such an idiotic logical fallacy as its chief argument to get naturally immune people to accept vaccination strongly suggests that the CDC is totally incompetent to be making these types of recommendations to the public.
But we cannot draw that conclusion because there is another possibility: the CDC might be highly competent, just not at making recommendations that are in the interests of public health; it could be competent in effectively serving the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry.
We can't chalk this up to incompetence because it's also possible that the CDC is deliberately deceiving people.
So, which is it?
Well, all we have to do to see that the CDC is not just failing to reason but willfully lying is to compare this argument with what the scientific evidence available to date tells us about natural immunity.
With its message, the CDC is deliberately leading people to the conclusion that natural immunity might be too weak to protect them now or too short in duration to protect them the next time they are exposed to SARS-CoV-2.
And that conclusion is demonstrably false.
As I've said in prior newsletters, studies have established that natural immunity is very robust, has remained durable for as long as scientists have been making observations, and will probably endure for many years to come -- possibly even a lifetime.
It's Normal for Antibodies to Wane over Time
The propaganda narrative that natural immunity might be short-lived isn't new. In fact, it got it's start months before the vaccines were even available.
Back in March 2020, when the lockdown measures were first implemented, I foresaw that these measures would be used to force a vaccine on us. (This was not some mystical prophetic power; rather, mass vaccination was literally the stated endgame of the lockdowns.)
So, when the propaganda started rolling out that I knew was intended to manufacture consent for the planned mass vaccination, I was documenting it.
All summer long, I was saving relevant articles and studies to my personal research archive in anticipation of eventually writing article on the topic of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 -- and how it differs from the protection associated with vaccination.
I'm sure you remember the early propaganda campaign: all those articles and news reports we kept seeing and hearing last year about how, after recovering from infection, antibodies in the blood disappear rapidly, within months, and so therefore people quickly lose their immunity.
"Immunity to the coronavirus is ‘fragile’ and ‘short-lived,’ immunologist warns", declared CNBC headline on July 7, 2020, for example.
The Guardian on July 12 announced: " Immunity to Covid-19 could be lost in months, UK study suggests".
The propaganda continued through the fall of 2020.
A headline that MSN ran with on October 16 stated: "Doctor says COVID-19 immunity wanes after 3 months".
A CNN headline on October 26 claimed: "British study shows evidence of waning immunity to Covid-19".
Here are two logical truisms:
Every journalist writing such nonsense was either too incompetent to be assigned to write about health science or knew better but was content to participate in the deception.
By contrast, every expert and every public health authority making those claims as quoted or paraphrased in those article certainly knew better; they were all certainly lying with intent to deceive.
After all, we know that these experts all understand basic immunology.
I'm certainly no scientific expert, but you don't have to have a PhD in immunology to see the deception. Everyone who knows even the basics of how our immune system functions knows that it is completely normal for antibodies to reach a peak after infection and to thereafter wane over time.
Every one of those experts and authorities -- and the more competent journalists -- knew that a loss of antibodies in the blood over time does not mean loss of immunity because there are other immune mechanisms that continue to protect against reinfection.
It was as obvious back in the summer of last year as it is now that this kind of reporting wasn't about educating the public but was about deliberately deceiving the public to (a) scare them into consenting to the authoritarian lockdown measures and (b) to scare them into believing that natural immunity wanes rapidly and therefore that herd immunity could never be achieved without mass vaccination.
What is perhaps most remarkable is how totally obvious the deception was to anyone who understands basic principles of how our immune system works and, yet, how the belief that natural immunity is short-lived came to be so pervasive in the minds of so much -- perhaps most -- of the population anyway.
The corrupt liars prey on the ignorance of the masses, and the last thing they would want to do would be to educate the public about the subject -- because to educate would be to arm the masses with the knowledge needed to see through their lies. To educate would be counterproductive for them.
The remainder of those experts and authorities who knew better either were complicit with their silence or had their voices drowned out by the incessant mainstream propaganda narrative.
Oh, Antibodies Are Actually Persistent Anyway
To claim that waning antibodies equaled loss of immunity was one thing. However, by last fall, it had already been shown that early reports of disappearing antibodies in large proportions of previously infected people were mistaken.
Those early studies were not using appropriately designed tests. Some looked only at antibodies against the nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2, which wane more rapidly than those against the spike protein. Some looked only at certain types of antibodies that disappeared more quickly than others.
From mid-summer through the fall of 2020, there were also studies contradicting those findings by showing persistence of antibodies: including the so-called "neutralizing" immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies that the average layperson might already know about only because these are the types of antibodies that the vaccines are intended to induce.
By the fall, it had become clear that, actually, those early reports were wrong and that antibodies, after a period of more rapid decline after reach a peak, in time leveled off and persisted in most people with natural immunity.
So, the next time you hear someone equate antibodies to immunity and on that basis claim that natural immunity wanes rapidly, you can correct them by pointing out that (a) waning antibody levels does not mean loss of immunity and (b) studies have shown that antibodies actually persist in most people who recover from infection with SARS-CoV-2.