YIKES: Senate Hearings Offer Peer-Reviewed COVID Data On Heart Damage And Miscarriage
Public officials have been playing Russian Roulette with public health
Sites like ours that objected to the jab being obligatory where jackhammered as ‘disinformation’ having both our reach and revenue slashed… but some of the exact objections we raised back then are showing up in Senate hearings and even peer-reviewed journals.
Like the peer-reviewed statistical fact that 216 deaths from the COVID 19 vaccination this year alone.
The first and strongest of all our objections had to do with of of the most fundamental of patient rights. The principle of informed consent. If almost every treatment carries some risk of side effect, it is right to tell the patient what those side effects are. You should have a clear picture of what might happen if you refuse treatment, and also, what might happen (good or bad) if you proceed with treatment.
That never happened in the pandemic. Fear was leveraged to obligate the public to take something whose long-term consequences had never been tested, and medical experts told us with a straight face, that taking it would not cause harm.
They wore important-looking labcoats, carried impressive credentials, and invoked phrases like ‘believe the science’ as a moral duty while those heretics or ‘science deniers’ who would not comply with mandates by governments or coporations were grandma killers and super-spreaders.
The more we learned about COVID and the government mandates, the more we learned the public had been misled, manipulated, and lied to about important facts that had direct bearing on their health.
But to find out just HOW badly we were lied to, the Senate needed to call some experts.
Sen Johnson chaired the meeting, and Sen Blumenthal led the Dem counter-narrative that rehashed the death toll and fear felt during the years of the pandemic.
But this three hour session includes some things we were never told by the experts who so confidently told us that the ‘harmless’ jab would save lives and had practically no negative side effects whatsoever.
The opening testimony of the witnesses begins around the 28 minute mark, (focused on myocarditis and the second witness at around the 35 minute mark (spike protein’s role in vaccine injury) who emphasized the importance of informed consent, third witness, at about the 40 min mark, talked about the C-19 vax, pregnancy, and specific examples of the government leveraging influence over pregnant women as a means manipulation of the wider public (41:04). Statistically, miscarriage rates for expectant mothers receiving the jab (42:49) were said to be about 12%, but studies have shown they were, in reality, roughly in line with the sort of numbers you would see from women taking the abortion pill.
Needless to say, mothers who had not been warned of this consequence — while being obligated to take this medical intervention — ought to be outraged over this fact.
At 47:12, we meet an orthopedic surgeon who became medically disabled after a single Moderna shot, and four years later, remains medically retired. He cites a figure of 36,000 Americans seriously injured by the vaccines (49:55), addresses the liability shield enjoyed by the vaccine makers, therefore obliging the government to be the party resposible for ‘making whole’ anyone harmed by these procedures.
One in every 800 people vaccinated, they state, suffers a serious adverse event.
At 53:37, another witness was introduced, who, in stating what they do (54:26) shredded bogus evidence brought forward in Blumenthal’s opening comments by a blog posing as a reputable science site. He made the point that if he tried to testify in a court of law with the sort of evidence ‘experts’ used to coerce the public into accepting pandemic mandates, including the vaccine, he would be laughed out of court.
He talked about the regulation of vaccines more generally.
It’s a three-hour hearing. You can shorten it by playing it back at double-speed and skipping the opening comments of the Chair and ranking member. But there’s a lot in there worth considering, especially when we want to reflect on the lengths to which our own government tried to deceive and to leverage fear as a motivator to compel the public into blind obedience.
Anyone who stood opposed to their efforts would be opposed as heretics to the cause. Practitioners might lose licences. Rebels would lose the right to work, travel, or attend events in public spaces. And the worst sort of heretics, the outspoken dissenters would be marked by Big Tech to have every dirty trick in the book thrown at them to bankrupt or silence them, or use sneaky ways of hiding those stories even from loyal readers who WANT to see what websites like ClashDaily might be saying about VAERS reports, or weighing the risk/reward of your comorbidities against the unknown consequences of using an untested treatment.
Another witness looked into the all cause mortality data, and the reason we did not see a reduction in all cause morality in 2021.