20,000 Shut Down Major Highway in Massive Melbourne Protest

Zero Hedge

Anti-lockdown protests have become more common in Australia since the latest round of “snap” lockdowns began two months ago.

Initially, those lockdowns were supposed to last a week. But months later, with tensions running high, millions of Australians are fed up with the government’s lockdowns and vaccine requirements.

And although Aussie health authorities have at the very least acknowledged that their “COVIDZero” approach isn’t actually feasible, frustrations among the Australian people are running high (perhaps intensified by the country’s latest diplomatic faux pas, which angered France and made PM Scott Morrison look like he stabbed President Macron in the back).

On Tuesday in Melbourne, authorities were forced to confront this blazing public anger as protesters executed an “extremely dangerous maneuver” by marching onto a busy freeway and blocking traffic in a tactic that some Americans might remember from last summer’s BLM protests inspired by the killing of George Floyd.

Thousands converged on the city for a second consecutive day on Tuesday, with shocking footage capturing dozens moving onto the West Gate Freeway into the path of cars. Traffic on the freeway, which is the busiest stretch of highway in Australia, was forced to a standstill in both directions as police tried to disperse the crowd.

Footage circulating on social media showed protesters tossing glass bottles and flares toward police, while some approached officers with their hands up, chanting “you serve us”. One was heard shouting “this is our bridge”.


Via https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/fk-jab-long-live-australia-20000-shut-down-melbourne-highway-massive-lockdown-protest

80 Groups, 57 Doctors, 19 Scientists Join CHD in Urging Pennsylvania to Reject ‘Smart Meters’ Mandate

By  Children’s Health Defense Team

Children’s Health Defense on Sept. 15 filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in support of a lawsuit challenging the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s interpretation of the state’s 2008 law mandating smart meters.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed the amicus brief in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

An amicus brief is filed by non-parties to a litigation to provide information that has a bearing on the issues and assist the court in reaching the correct decision. It comes from the latin words amici curiae, which means “friend of the court.”

“Smart” wireless utility meters have been deployed in the U.S. for a decade, replacing the analog mechanical meters that for decades were used reliably and safely, and were read monthly by “meter readers.

They were promoted as part of the 2008 stimulus program, as an investment in energy conservation.

Smart meters contain transmitting antennas that continuously communicate electric usage to the utility company in real time. They allow companies to “punish” users for using electricity during high demand periods and reward them for using it at less busy times.

Smart meters now leading cause of sickness, especially in children

A decade after they were introduced, there is little to no evidence smart meters saved any energy. Instead, ample evidence shows that consumers had to carry a rate hike to fund the ever-increasing costs of these meters.

False readings by the meters have resulted in much higher bills for consumers. The meters have caused fires and violated privacy rights by selling consumers’ usage data.

But by far the worst consequence of widespread use of smart meters is that they have become a leading cause of sickness in adults and children.

To support the claims of adverse effects from exposure to smart meters, the amicus brief filed by CHD included a statement by scientists with expert knowledge of the impact of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and RF on human health.

Cumulatively, these scientists have published hundreds of studies on RF/EMF effects and reviewed thousands of others. They explain how smart meters cause widespread sickness because of how they operate.


Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/chd-amicus-brief-supreme-court-pennsylvania-reject-smart-meters-mandate/

‘This is Evil at The Highest Level,’ Says HHS Whistleblower

By  Project Veritas

In a video released Monday by Project Veritas, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services insider, Jodi O’Malley, a registered nurse, shares recorded conversations between her and colleagues about the government’s failure to acknowledge COVID vaccine risks and lack of efficacy.

O’Malley described to Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe what has been going on at her federal government facility. To corroborate her assertions, O’Malley recorded her HHS colleagues discussing their concerns about the new COVID vaccine.

Here are some of the highlights from the video:

  • Dr. Maria Gonzales, ER doctor, HHS: “All this is bullshit. Now, [a patient] probably [has] myocarditis due to the [COVID] vaccine. But now, they [government] are not going to blame the vaccine.”
  • Dr. Gonzales: “They [government] are not reporting [adverse COVID vaccine side effects] … They want to shove it under the mat.”
  • Deanna Paris, registered nurse, HHS: “It’s a shame they [government] are not treating people [with COVID] like they’re supposed to, like they should. I think they want people to die.”
  • Jodi O’Malley, HHS insider and registered nurse: The COVID vaccine is “not doing what its purpose was.”
  • O’Malley: “I’ve seen dozens of people come in with adverse reactions.”
  • O’Malley: “If we [government] are not gathering [COVID vaccine] data and reporting it, then how are we going to say that this is safe and approved for use?”


Watch the video here:


Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/project-veritas-jodi-omalley-hhs-whistleblower-covid-vaccine

The Ohio Banksters Who Went to Jail for Crashing the Global Economy

The Con Part 1

Directed by Patrick Lovell (2021)

Film Review

Part 1 of this five-part documentary concerns one of the rare US criminal prosecutions of the bankers responsible for the 2008 global financial crash.

The prosecutions occurred in Akron Ohio, after a state legislator became suspicious of a tidal wave of foreclosures in a low income African American neighborhood. It really bothered him that local appraisers were consistently appraising homes at two or three times their actual value.*

Police investigators subsequently learned that mortgage brokers were repeatedly falsifying and forging loan applications, as well as going door-to-door pressuring elderly residents to apply for mortgages for costly home repairs. One real estate agent foreclosed on and resold the same home two or three times.

Eventually the agent, and managers at Evergreen Finance (the mortgage company) and Carnation Bank were all arrested, prosecuted and sent to prison.

In the process, investigators learned similar “tidal waves” of fraudulent mortgages were occurring in all 50 states. In many cases, local banks went on to sell these mortgages to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street investment banks. The latter reaped immense profits by  “bundling” these subprime mortgages (which low income home owners had no hope of repaying) into mortgage-backed securities they sold to clients. However only in Ohio did banksters go to prison for their fraudulent activities.

The film’s producer Patrick Lovell is from Akron and had his own home foreclosed on in during the financial crisis. Akron was also home to Addie Polk, a 91 year old African American woman who shot herself (in 2007) just as sheriff’s officers were arriving to throw her out of her home. She was unable to meet a balloon payment on $58,000 worth of mortgage loans (on a $25,000 house) she was conned into signing up for in 2001 and 2004.

*To help low income residents qualify for subprime mortgages.

Former FDA commissioner said the 6-feet social distancing rule is ‘arbitrary’ and ‘nobody knows where it came from’

scott gottlieb fda commissioner
Scott Gottlieb in 2017 Zach Gibson/Getty Images

By Gabbi Shaw

Business Insider

  • Scott Gottlieb, FDA commissioner from 2017 to April 2019, appeared on “Face the Nation” on Sunday.
  • During the interview, he said that the 6-feet rule recommended by the CDC is “arbitrary.”
  • Gottlieb also said no one knows where it came from, as the original proposal was 10 feet.

During a September 19 “Face the Nation” appearance, former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb made some claims regarding the CDC guidelines that we all stand six feet apart to prevent the spread of COVID-19 via socia distancing.

“The six feet rule was arbitrary in and of itself,” he told interviewer Margaret Brennan. “Nobody knows where it came from. Most people assume that the six feet of distance, the recommendation for keeping six feet apart, comes out of some old studies related to flu, where droplets don’t travel more than six feet,” he added.

Gottlieb, who published the “National Coronavirus Response: A Road Map to Reopening” with several other public health experts, a guide on how to manage the disease, also said the original recommendation was to keep people 10 feet apart, but that was shut down.

“The initial recommendation that the CDC brought to the White House … was 10 feet, and a political appointee in the White House said we can’t recommend 10 feet,” he said. “Nobody can measure 10 feet, it’s inoperable, society will shut down. So the compromise was around six feet,” Gottlieb continued.


Via https://www.insider.com/former-fda-commissioner-says-6-feet-rule-arbitrary-2021-9

14 Military Members Detail Toll Vaccine Mandates Are Taking on Service Members in Amended Motion to CHD Lawsuit Against FDA

The motion, filed Sept. 18, is part of a lawsuit filed last month by Children’s Health Defense against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of Pfizer’s Comirnaty Vaccine.

On Sept. 17, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed an amended motion to stay as a follow up to its lawsuit, filed Aug. 31, against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for simultaneously approving and authorizing Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine in a classic “bait and switch.”

The FDA’s action created mass confusion, disorder and deception regarding the differences between the two Pfizer vaccines.

The FDA approval purportedly allowed the U.S. Military, the Biden administration and other U.S. companies to exhort people to take “licensed” vaccines when in fact the vaccines routinely available and being administered in the U.S. continue to be the Pfizer-BioNTech Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) vaccines.

“The FDA’s deceitful scheme dupes unsuspecting military members as well as much of America into believing they are receiving a vaccine with certain legal protections that are not available to EUA vaccines,” said Mary Holland, CHD president and general counsel.

Holland added:

“The FDA’s illegal approval of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine has helped the U.S. Department of Defense justify strict COVID-19 vaccine mandates that have resulted in U.S. military members being threatened with harsh consequences for refusing to receive the EUA-Pfizer vaccine.”

Holland said that in the memorandum filed Sept. 18, to accompany the amended motion to stay, “Plaintiffs detail with striking clarity the impact the FDA’s scheme has on our men and women in uniform. This would not have existed without the FDA’s unlawful actions.”

The 16 exhibits to the memorandum include declarations from 14 military service members, who are also members of CHD. According to Holland, the declarations are illustrative of the coercion men and women of different branches of the service face.

“These 14 men and women, ranging in rank from enlisted men and women to senior officers, put their careers at risk to submit their declarations,” Holland said.

The declarations were selected from more than 100 submissions CHD received over a two-day period. The declarations detail each service member’s documented concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of unlicensed vaccines.

“Their careers should not be ended simply because they exercise their rights under federal law,” said Ray Flores, one of the attorneys in the lawsuit. “Even though these service members have a lawful right to refuse the available vaccines, which are overwhelmingly EUA, they risk irreparable harm to their careers, education, property and civil liberties, including dishonorable discharge, demotion, an end to their VA benefits, pensions and medical insurance. As many are sole breadwinners, their families also suffer,” Flores said.

The servicemen and women who sought religious, medical and serological exemptions report their commanders have already told them all exemptions will be denied.

An existing military regulation includes the following as basis for natural, acquired immunity exemptions: “Evidence of immunity based on serologic tests, documented infection, or similar circumstances.” [AR 40-562 Ch. 2-6a. (1)(b).]

More than half of the declarations demonstrate the service member has already acquired natural immunity to COVID. As with the rest of the population facing mandates, natural immunity is not being taken into account.


Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/14-military-members-vaccine-mandates-chd-lawsuit-fda/

Elderly Australian woman knocked down & Pepper-Sprayed by police during protest against lockdowns

RT | September 19, 2021

An elderly woman believed to be in her 70s was attacked by Melbourne police and pepper-sprayed while she was on the ground during a protest against Covid-19 lockdowns on Saturday.

As she held an Australian flag and stood on the road facing toward a group of approaching police, one officer shoved the woman, sending her tumbling to the ground. Another officer then pepper-sprayed the woman as she laid motionless and unable to protect herself.

Seconds after the attack – with the offending officers having already moved on – another group of police officers came to the woman’s aid and attempted to help her up.

Videos of the attack from multiple angles went viral on social media this weekend, with many Australians accusing the Melbourne officers of police brutality.


Via https://alethonews.com/2021/09/19/elderly-australian-woman-knocked-down-pepper-sprayed-by-police-during-protest-against-lockdowns/


Study: Conventional Cancer Treatment Shortens Lifespan


By Lori Alton

(NaturalHealth365)  Newly diagnosed cancer patients typically feel overwhelmed – by the prognosis of their illness as well as the mountain of decisions that often face them.

And now, those decisions may become even more complicated.  The Foundation for the Advancement of Cancer Therapy (FACT™) is pointing to a quarter-century of research that brings into question the decision cancer patients often make to undergo conventional treatments, including radiation and chemotherapy, in hopes of prolonging life.

Study finds increased mortality with conventional cancer treatment

Drug company-controlled news reports and popular thinking have led cancer patients to believe that decades of research have resulted in treatment practices that have improved cancer survival rates.

But, FACT™ points to credible cancer researchers’ work that seems to fly in the face of this commonly held belief.  For example, the late Dr. Hardin B. Jones, professor of medical physics and physiology at Berkeley, California, conducted research spanning 25 years in the life of cancer patients that led him to conclude that untreated cancer patients did not die sooner.

In fact, in many instances, they lived longer than those undergoing conventional cancer treatments, such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation.

Professor Jones first presented his shocking research results at the American Cancer Society’s Science Writers’ Seminar in 1969.  His findings confirmed an earlier paper he wrote in 1955 that shed doubt that common forms of treatment truly extended patient life.

Research proof:  Conventional cancer studies give a false perception of reality

In his earlier paper, Dr. Jones illustrated how cancer study results were skewed to conclude that treated patients fared better.  For example, patients who died while receiving treatment were not included in the results, giving an unrealistically rosier picture of the survival rate of treated patients.

In his 1969 presentation, the professor pointed out that research continued to shift results in favor of treatment.  For example, patients whose cancer was extremely advanced were routinely placed in the group not receiving treatment.  This left more patients who were less seriously impacted in the treated group, resulting in a higher survival rate.

Once this bias was statistically corrected, Dr. Jones found that the survival rates among untreated patients were greater than among the patients undergoing treatment.

Dr. Jones determined that survival among people with breast cancer was four times longer when conventional treatment was refused.  Such patients typically lived an average of 12 1/2 years, compared to those undergoing treatment who lived only three years on average, leading the cancer researcher to conclude that without a doubt, radical surgery did more harm to cancer patients than it did good.

Meanwhile, FACT™ points out, there has been no published work refuting the evidence presented by Dr. Jones.  On the contrary, his conclusions have been supported by the work of other recognized researchers.  Among them was Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist Dr. Maurice Fox who published his paper in 1979 stating that radical mastectomy did not bring about better survival rates than simple lump removal.

He also wrote that patients opting out of medical procedures actually had a lower mortality rate than those who chose to undergo treatment.  Further, patients who received early diagnoses died even sooner, likely due to the duration and intensity of treatment.

The devastating effects of conventional cancer therapy revealed

Even those advocating conventional treatment as the best choice for cancer patients cannot dismiss the toll such procedures take on the body.  Cancer patients opting to undergo such treatment plans must cope with greater pain and suffering, often to the point where it dramatically impacts quality of life.

Patients undergoing conventional treatment can expect to cope with an often horrific list of severe side effects, including cancer growth and death.  For example, as a known cancer-causing agent, radiation can actually spread cancer and lead to deadly metastases.  Left untreated, however, the original cancerous tumor can often slow the cancer’s spread.

Other common conditions that develop as a result of treatment include hemorrhage, tissue death, compromised immunity, liver failure, kidney dysfunction, blistering, prolonged vomiting, disorientation, anorexia, enteritis, and bone marrow depression, among other serious ills.

The case for ‘informed’ decisions

Bringing these researchers’ conclusions to light leaves cancer patients with a more difficult decision-making process, but one that may offer renewed choices.  As always, patients ought to consult with a trusted medical doctor and loved ones in formulating the decision of whether or not to undergo treatments like radiation or chemotherapy.

As with many decisions they face, cancer patients will need to review all information available to determine the best course of action.  Choosing a path that includes conventional treatment should be done based on available scientifically-grounded evidence and personal preference, not out of pressure or fear that avoiding treatment will surely condemn the patient to a shorter life expectancy.


The Year Immunologists Went Anti-Vaxx

Dr Emad Guirguis, at a rally in Toronto last week, asked “is there an ethical docotor in the house?” and “how did this (coercion and medical dictatorship) happen in medicine?“.


The reason why I started writing papers and making videos, was because I saw something alarming… People need to stop denying there’s something bad going on. There’s something bad going on.

Dr Jessica Rose, Immunologist, speaks here about safety monitoring and the data she has analysed on the Covid products. The link also leads to a presentation she recently made to the Canadian Covid Care Alliance.

Robert F Kennedy Jr speaks here for 28 minutes about his research findings for his new book, The Real Dr Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health. He explains a lot about why public health no longer makes any sense. Serious criminals have enormous Mafiosi-style power. His description of current affairs and the manipulation of our responses is something that every human being on earth, especially those supporting lockdown/Fangkong as a public health…

View original post 73 more words

NZDSOS Demands Investigation into Deaths Associated with Pfizer Shot in Young People

New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out - NZDSOS

New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science


14 September 2021

New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science (NZDSOS), has now received reports of four deaths within two weeks occurring in New Zealand teens after Comirnaty injection. Since covid19 is of almost no risk to this group, this information demands scrutiny.

An eighteenyearold collapsed on the 9th of September while walking with her father two weeks after her first COVID injection. She was subsequently helicoptered to Auckland City Hospital and then reported to have died from “multiple blood clots”. A second seventeenyearold male was found dead at a Northland beach a day after the injection in the second week of September. This report was made through a ‘friend of a friend’. A third and fourth case were reported in the same manner, one a sixteenyearold from Christchurch and another a fifteenyearold from Epsom, both with diagnoses of ‘heart attacks’.

Several children aged twelve to fifteen have suffered heartrelated issues and been admitted to hospital over the same period. Relatives of the 13 year old in
Whangarei ICU speak of a gag order on the staff. A mid20s strong fit man died in his sleep.
While further information is awaited, all four deaths raise urgent questions about the safety of the Comirnaty product and its widespread promotion to children and young adults in this country.

Several aspects of these cases deserve further attention. The first is that heart attacks or myocardial infarctions to use the technical term, are exceedingly rare in teenagers. Generally, only casereports are described, and they often are associated with other factors, such as illicit drug use. Similarly, another possibility, community acquired vein clots in otherwise well children are extremely rare. A search of cases at The Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne from 2007 to 2015 yielded only eleven. The term ‘heart attack’ may refer to myocarditis or heart muscle inflammation, which has been linked to the vaccine by the government’s own medicine regulator.

Clearly, to have such a concentration of unusual fatal events in teenagers in a short space of time, coinciding with the rollout of the experimental product with only provisional Medsafe approval raises important issues related to its safety. We also need to ask whether these events are the ‘tip of the iceberg’ and should the roll-out be halted pending further investigation?

Our group is not reassured by the initial dismissive response from government officials. In a recent newspaper article, directorgeneral of health Dr Ashley Bloomfield stated that if there was any possibility” of such a link, a health professional would have reported it. The principal of another school stated that he understood the death was due to a suspected heart attack not COVID”.

Another article quoted the prime minister: Jacinda Ardern said there have been no deaths to any teenagers in New Zealand related to getting vaccinated and encouraged New Zealanders to continue
getting vaccinated.

First, none of these statements indicate that proper investigations have taken place. It is also at odds with growing evidence of harm in young people after the Pfizer mRNA injection overseas.

One study highlights a caseseries of heart inflammation in 13 US adolescents in Washington state with a median onset three days after the vaccine. A cohort study from Spain shows a threefold increased risk of any vein clot after the second dose, compared to unvaccinated people.

Overseas reports of injury postvaccination are like those we describe here. Singapore media described a case of heart inflammation as a ‘heart attack’ in a 16yearold. Their government has agreed to pay the teenager $225,000 in compensation.

In Australia where over 2,000 children were vaccinated en masse in a stadium, at least two children were taken to hospital in a coma and subsequently died. We have evidence that the family had suppression orders placed on them. This has been reported to us from concerned doctors in Australia.This has been reported to our doctors from doctors in Australia.

How should we respond to our cluster of reported deaths? The information firstly needs to be verified. Despite not having complete validation for some of these cases we balance the risks of waiting longer to speak out, thereby giving the authorities more time to delay yanking the emergency brake, versus crying wolf. Obviously, if any are proven untrue, the remainder are still tragic, and their families need time and space to grieve.

However, further information about these cases is clearly in the public interest. Were autopsies carried out? What were their results? What was the working diagnosis? A full investigation and disclosure of the evidence for vaccine harm is surely the only prudent response given the gravity of these events. Are there other deaths after the injection that are not being reported? We believe so. The dismissals of the government are of
grave concern and undermines our trust in them as they continue to solicit an injection to the population with simplistic messages of it being ‘safe and effective’.

We need to remember that the risk of death from covid19 in teenagers is almost zero, as is their overall risk of death in this country. The evidence relating to young people dying within a fortnight of a vaccine must not be hastily swept under the carpet. This cluster of deaths should make us all take a sober look at the real risks of this experimental injection and dig deeper into the details of these deaths, as our young generation depends on us to protect them from real risks, not scare them with imagined ones so the rest of us believe we are a little safer.

For references see original press release at https://nzdsos.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Teen-deaths-210914-final.pdf

%d bloggers like this: