At the "Mercy" of the Merciless, part three

Although I had intended to start writing a commentary about an interview that Victor Manuel Fernandez gave recently to the National Catholic Register, I think that a third part of what was intended to be a two-part series is warranted by several interrelated developments.

First, as has been noted throughout the “Sin: More Deadly Than the Coronavirus” series since March 2020, there is no doubt concerning the fact that SARS-CoV-2 virus was the result of a “gain of function” program at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, Red China, that was funded in part by Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at time when then President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro had placed a moratorium on such funding.  

Ever desirous to be subservient to the “sensitivities” of the Chinese Communist Party, many fellow travelers within the United States Central Intelligence Agency sought to defend their fellow Communist ideologues by attempting to bribe independent scientific analysts who had come to the conclusion with a just a “weak” level of confidence that the virus--whose spread was mismanaged, labeled a lethal threat when it was not so for most people if treated in the early stages, and the treatment of which became an excuse to use rigidly enforced medical protocols that caused the deaths of many of those who contracted it—that the virus had leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology:

The Central Intelligence Agency offered to pay off analysts in order to bury their findings that COVID-19 most likely leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China, new whistleblower testimony to Congress alleges.

A senior-level CIA officer told House committee leaders that his agency tried to pay off six analysts who found SARS-CoV-2 likely originated in a Wuhan lab if they changed their position and said the virus jumped from animals to humans, according to a letter sent Tuesday to CIA Director William Burns.

Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner (R-Ohio) requested all documents, communications and pay info from the CIA’s COVID Discovery Team by Sept. 26.

“According to the whistleblower, at the end of its review, six of the seven members of the Team believed the intelligence and science were sufficient to make a low confidence assessment that COVID-19 originated from a laboratory in Wuhan, China,” the House panel chairmen wrote.

“The seventh member of the Team, who also happened to be the most senior, was the lone officer to believe COVID-19 originated through zoonosis.”

“The whistleblower further contends that to come to the eventual public determination of uncertainty, the other six members were given a significant monetary incentive to change their position,” they said, noting that the analysts were “experienced officers with significant scientific expertise.”

Wenstrup and Turner also asked for documents and communications between the CIA and other federal agencies, including the State Department, the FBI, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Energy Department.

In a separate letter, the House committee leaders identified former CIA chief operating officer Andrew Makridis as having “played a central role” in the COVID investigation and asked him to sit for a transcribed interview.

“At CIA we are committed to the highest standards of analytic rigor, integrity, and objectivity. We do not pay analysts to reach specific conclusions,” CIA Director of Public Affairs Tammy Kupperman Thorp told The Post in a statement. “We take these allegations extremely seriously and are looking into them. We will keep our Congressional oversight committees appropriately informed.”

Makridis did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The FBI was the first US intelligence agency to conclude the COVID-19 pandemic most likely originated with a lab leak. In February, the Energy Department also concluded a lab leak was likely, based on new intelligence.

The US intelligence community declassified its 10-page reporton COVID origins in June, which found “biosafety concerns” and “genetic engineering” taking place at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but most of its “agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not genetically engineered.”

Several scientists at the Wuhan lab also became sick in the fall of 2019 with symptoms “consistent with but not diagnostic of COVID-19,” the report states. 

The CIA and one other intelligence agency “remain unable to determine the precise origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, as both hypotheses rely on significant assumptions or face challenges with conflicting reporting,” it says.

But some former US intelligence officials have disagreed with the assessment. In April, former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe told Congress that the so-called “lab leak theory” was the “only” credible explanation for the pandemic, which has since claimed the lives of nearly 7 million people across the globe, according to the World Health Organization.

“My informed assessment as a person with as much access as anyone to our government’s intelligence … has been and continues to be that a lab leak is the only explanation credibly supported by our intelligence, by science and by common sense,” Ratcliffe told the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic in a hearing.

“If our intelligence and evidence supporting a lab leak was placed side by side with our intelligence and evidence pointing to a natural origins or spillover theory, the lab leak side of the ledger would be long, convincing, even overwhelming — while the spillover side would be nearly empty and tenuous,” added Ratcliffe, a former Texas Republican congressman who served as President Donald Trump’s second and last director of national intelligence.

As the former number three official at the CIA during the pandemic, Makridis coordinated his agency’s response to COVID before retiring in 2022.

He now serves as a senior adviser at Beacon Global Strategies.

The strategic advisory firm also says on its website that he spent “over a decade in the Directorate of Intelligence working and then leading the technical analysis of Russian, Chinese, Iranian, and North Korean strategic weapons and space capabilities.” (CIA tried to pay off analysts to bury COVID lab leak findings.)

What a government we have, huh?

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) offered a million dollars to Christopher Steele to provide documentation of his false accusations of then candidate Donald John Trump’s nonexistent collusion with Russia to defeat former Arkansas First Lady/former First Lady of the United States of America/former Carpetbagging United States Senator from New Yorker/former United States of Secretary of State and storer of classified emails on a homebrewed computer server in Chappaqua, New York Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation worked to pressure “social media” executives to censor and/or to downgrade by means of algorithmic formulae news stories and social media posts critical of the Wuhan virus vaccines, including those posts containing irrefutable facts, and posts concerning Hunter Biden’s laptop computer.

And there is now evidence of the Central Intelligence Agency’s seeking to bribe analysts into not publishing any findings about the Wuhan Virus’s true origins.

Anyone who believes anything that is issued by the government of the United States of America is an abject fool.

Second, Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA technology, said two months ago that it is his belief that the Wuhan Virus “vaccines” were developed to achieve the Central Intelligence Agency’s goal to depopulate the earth:

In a speech at the 2023 White Coat Summit, Dr. Robert Malone asked the crucial question about the so-called COVID vaccines:

“Why would a government wish to advance this technology?”

His reluctant conclusion is that the novel mRNA injections have been developed by the CIA to assist in a global depopulation program – which has existed in the United States since the 1970s.

Dr. Malone was one of the pioneers of the technology which led to the development of the mRNA injections. His near-unique insight into their mechanism of action was derided as “misinformation” by the mainstream media, once he began to warn the world of the dangers of these novel interventions.

Given his background in developing what he refers to as “genetic vaccines,” Dr. Malone would appear to personify the very science we ought to be following. It is not his credentials nor his proven expertise which has led to the attacks on his reputation, however. It is the fact that the science he has followed has led him to a sinister global program of deliberate harm. 

Who are the puppet masters? U.S. government, Nazi scientists 

Dr. Malone says:

When we ask who are the puppet masters behind all this, we have to look the brutal truth in the face. That behind a lot of this is the U.S. government … in funding, policy and actions.

He goes much further in explaining the history of biological warfare innovation in the modern world:

The entire backbone of modern biology as we know it – molecular biology, biochemistry, virology, microbiology – [has] been created in large part through massive U.S. government investment in biowarfare programs … which of course all derives from Operation Paperclip and the importation of both Nazi and Japanese biowarfare specialists.

Dr. Malone’s softly-spoken speech argues that the U.S. government is not merely the enemy of its own people – but almost all of them, everywhere. Almost, that is, except for a small elite.

Dr. Malone questions why “genetic vaccines” were selected for the task of supposedly combating COVID-19. He points out that their advancement was pushed by DARPA – the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency of the U.S. government.

Dr. Malone claims there is no difference between this agency and the one tasked with subversion, propaganda and the changing of regimes – the CIA.

To be blunt – DARPA is CIA. DARPA is the operational arm of CIA for the development and deployment of technology.

The “technology” developed and deployed here is a “genetic vaccine” to advance a global depopulation agenda in line with an internationally coordinated population reduction program. Dr Malone has written about DARPA’s involvement in the development of these novel injections, and has claimed elsewhere that “vaccine” company Moderna is “a CIA front” – also created by DARPA. . . .

Malone notes this, and the fact that Kissinger continues to collaborate with the WEF. He goes further, claiming the WEF was created by the CIA for the purposes of advancing its global agenda.

This globalist network tirelessly promotes agendas such as antinatalist policies, ESG, and Net Zero, whose aggressive implementation will likely collapse industrial society. 

Hormone-disrupting contraception, the murder of the unborn, and the promotion of childless sexual lifestyles are all beneficial to an agenda of depopulation.

The provision of “puberty blockers” to children who through social contagion believe themselves “trans” will leave them permanently sterilized.

These factors amount to a remarkable alignment with an overall agenda to reduce the number of humans. It is an agenda with a proven blueprint – itself followed by the creation of the very agencies it suggested as necessary for the execution of the plan.

How telling that four years after Kissinger moved to create the WEF, a report is commissioned by him on the means to achieve a reduction in global population.

The motive and the means

Global measures to reduce population were motivated by power, not by any concern for the environment. The rising populations of developing countries would lead, in the eyes of the report, to increased political pressure on the U.S. to provide development to nations against the economic and strategic interests of the U.S.

These nations are more readily exploited when they remain underdeveloped. Further, a younger population is more likely to agitate for the kind of change which would wrest these nations from the globalized control championed by the report.

This strategy, with its clear-eyed and utterly inhumane view of human affairs, appears at second reading to dovetail with the phase of near borderless mass migration we now witness. Seen in this light, the transfer of youthful populations from developing countries eases political unrest. As these novel populations arrive, their Western host nations experience a series of domestic tensions which themselves serve to distract and divide populations, easing the implementation of a global agenda. . . .

NSSM 200, ‘The Kissinger Report,’ shows that profit and political power are the motives driving the depopulation agenda. Taken from Dr. Robert Malone’s Substack.

Countdown to depopulation

Dr. Malone points out in his video address that “many of the things that were deployed” were “consistent with the public policy of the United States as it relates to population control.”

The recommendations of The Kissinger Report became public policy under President Gerald Ford, who in 1975 advanced National Security Decision 314, recommended here and recorded here.

READ: Dr. Eric Nepute calls on colleagues to oppose weaponized gov’t agencies at White Coat Summit

Dr. Malone noted both in his video address and the above-mentioned post that “the report indicates that global population must not exceed 8 billion human beings. Is it a coincidence that in 2020 total global human inhabitants reached 7.84 billion?”

This is a coincidence which seems ever more remarkable when Dr. Malone also recalls that many leading billionaires have repeatedly met to discuss the limiting of the human population. . . .

Malone’s calmly reasoned address points to long-standing coordinated actions consistent with the aims of the 1974 Kissinger Report. He reveals, without hyperbole, an orchestrated campaign to depopulate the earth, which has seen the media, the U.S. government, and the CIA collude with billionaires and the global, non-government organizations created to serve this agenda.

Dr. Malone has produced a well-researched and compelling case which he is advancing in the public interest. His is the kind of scientific method we should do well to follow – one indifferent to persecution in defense of the evidence. The case has been made. It is no coincidence that the conference at which Dr. Malone spoke was subtitled The Reckoning. (Dr. Robert Malone: COVID jabs were a CIA operation to depopulate the world.)

Depopulation has long been a policy of the government of the United States of America, dating back over fifty years to the time that President Richard Milhous Nixon embarked on an aggressive campaign of "population control." Nixon’s first Secretary of State, William Pierce Rogers, who had been the Attorney General of the United States of America from October 13, 1957, to January 20, 1961, was responsible for implementing President Richard Milhous Nixon's July 18, 1969, Special Message to Congress on the Problems of Population Growth. Nixon's special message contained the following passage that should send shivers up the spine of any believing Catholic who loves God as He has revealed Himself to men exclusively through the Catholic Church as a very clear indication of the extent to which the leaders of both organized crime families of naturalism in the United States of America, have been committed to anti-life and anti-family policies that mock God and lead to social and international chaos:

It is my view that no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition. I believe, therefore, that we should establish as a national goal the provision of adequate family planning services within the next five years to all those who want them but cannot afford them. This we have the capacity to do.

Clearly, in no circumstances will the activities associated with our pursuit of this goal be allowed to infringe upon the religious convictions or personal wishes and freedom of any individual, nor will they be allowed to impair the absolute right of all individuals to have such matters of conscience respected by public authorities.

In order to achieve this national goal, we will have to increase the amount we are spending on population and family planning. But success in this endeavor will not result from higher expenditures alone. Because the life circumstances and family planning wishes of those who receive services vary considerably, an effective program must be more flexible in its design than are many present efforts. In addition, programs should be better coordinated and more effectively administered. Under current legislation, a comprehensive State or local project must assemble a patchwork of funds from many different sources--a time-consuming and confusing process. Moreover, under existing legislation, requests for funds for family planning services must often compete with requests for other deserving health endeavors. (Special Message to Congress on the Problems of Population Growth.)

In other words, Nixon did not want the government to force religiously run institutions to adopt policies to their beliefs. He only wanted every American taxpayer, regardless of religious convictions, to fund the evil of "family planning."

Nixon's second Secretary of State, Dr. Heinz Alfred Kissinger, who served succeeded William Pierce Rogers on September 3, 1973, was a thorough supporter of abortion and contraception. Kissinger

Kissinger, a former aide to the arch supporter of contraception and abortion, the late adulterous former Governor of New York and Vice President of the United States, Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, and Nixon sought to issue a National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM-200) in 1974 which would have encouraging countries to impose a one-child-per family policy in order to receive American foreign aid. The Nixon Administration authorized the writing of National Security Study Memorandum 200 in 1974 that was designed to implement a variety of the “population control” measures that had been recommended by the Rockefeller Commission, a panel appointed by President Nixon in 1969 following his own Special Message to Congress on July 18, 1969, on the “necessity” of controlling population growth.

This particular Memorandum, which was the brainchild of Nixon and Henry Kissinger and presidential counselor Donald D. Rumsfeld, included such draconian measures as encouraging countries to develop a one child per family policy and to regulate the control of food to developing nations. As a result of pressure brought by several Catholic cardinals in the United States, this NSSM was classified until 1989, at which point its terms were released.

It still amazes my friends, that the Nixon administration, whose officials believed in the abject immorality of the whole panoply of “population control” measures recommended in NSSM 200, including encouraging parents to have “one child per family,” can be praised and defended by any Catholic to this very day. Have we no love for God? Have we no regard for the horror of sin and  how it is an evil thing to promote sin under cover of law?

Nixon, ever the practitioner of amorality, was favorably inclined to the surgical dismemberment of children in their mothers' wombs under "some conditions," stating clearly during the presidential election of 1992 that it was time to get the issue of abortion out of electoral politics, that other issues were more important. Nixon also believed in eugenic abortions, especially in cases of interracial marriages.

Oblivious to the fact that a statement of his about abortion on April 3, 1971, made it appear as though he was opposed to abortion as a means of "population control" without mentioning his support of abortion for eugenic reasons. Nixon's stand was hideous and reprehensible. It would be interesting to hear how those who defend the nonexistent"right" of a woman to "choose" to kill her baby explain

HISTORICALLY, laws regulating abortion in the United States have been the province of States, not the Federal Government. That remains the situation today, as one State after another takes up this question, debates it, and decides it. That is where the decisions should be made.

Partly for that reason, I have directed that the policy on abortions at American military bases in the United States be made to correspond with the laws of the States where those bases are located. If the laws in a particular State restrict abortions, the rules at the military base hospitals are to correspond to that law.

The effect of this directive is to reverse service regulations issued last summer, which had liberalized the rules on abortions at military hospitals. The new ruling supersedes this--and has been put into effect by the Secretary of Defense.

But while this matter is being debated in State capitals and weighed by various courts, the country has a right to know my personal views.

From personal and religious beliefs I consider abortion an unacceptable form of population control. Further, unrestricted abortion policies, or abortion on demand, I cannot square with my personal belief in the sanctity of human life--including the life of the yet unborn. For, surely, the unborn have rights also, recognized in law, recognized even in principles expounded by the United Nations.

Ours is a nation with a Judeo-Christian heritage. It is also a nation with serious social problems--problems of malnutrition, of broken homes, of poverty, and of delinquency. But none of these problems justifies such a solution.

A good and generous people will not opt, in my view, for this kind of alternative to its social dilemmas. Rather, it will open its hearts and homes to the unwanted children of its own, as it has done for the unwanted millions of other lands. (Nixon Statement on Abortion, April 3, 1971.)

Such confusion, starting with the fact that there is no such thing as a "Judeo-Christian" heritage. Truth can never be mixed in with error. Catholicism is the sole means of personal and social order. Nothing else. Not Talmudic Judaism Not the thousands of permutations of Protestantism, each of which is founded on a rejection of the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has revealed exclusively to His true Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.

Then President Nixon told the nation in 1971 that he considered surgical baby-killing to be "an unacceptable form of population control" and that he opposed "abortion on demand" at the same time he permitted babies to be slaughtered by surgical means on the ground of American military bases in those states that permitted abortion-on-demand. Nixon was oblivious as to the simple truth that no human institution of civil governance has any authority to dispense with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law so as to permit any direct, intentional taking of an innocent human life from the first moment of conception through all subsequent stages until the day of natural death under cover of the civil law. Nixon was saying, in effect, "I am personally opposed to abortion-on-demand, but I will permit surgeons in the employ of the government of the United States of America on American military bases to kill babies in those states that permit abortion-on-demand. Perhaps Nixon was prophetically anticipating the Apostate Emeritus Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict's XVI logically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" that stands the the principle of non-contradiction on its head.

Richard Nixon, who, as will be noted below, accepted the abject moral evil of contraception in order to advance the goals of "population control," reiterated his confused views about abortion following the release of the report on population control that was issued by a commission headed by John D. Rockefeller III, the brother of the then Governor of the State of New York, the pro-abortion Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, and the father of the junior United States senator from West Virginia, John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV, that supported abortion-on-demand:

While I do not plan to comment extensively on the contents and recommendations of the report, I do feel that it is important that the public know my views on some of the issues raised.

In particular, I want to reaffirm and reemphasize that I do not support unrestricted abortion policies. As I stated on April 3, 1971, when I revised abortionpolicies in military hospitals, I consider abortion an unacceptable form of population control. In my judgment, unrestricted abortion policies would demean human life. I also want to make it clear that I do not support the unrestricted distribution of family planning services and devices to minors. Such measures would do nothing to preserve and strengthen close family relationships.

I have a basic faith that the American people themselves will make sound judgments regarding family size and frequency of births, judgments that are conducive both to the public interest and to personal family goals--and I believe in the right of married couples to make these judgments for themselves.

While disagreeing with the general thrust of some of the Commission's recommendations, I wish to extend my thanks to the members of the Commission for their work and for having assembled much valuable information.

The findings and conclusions of the Commission should be of great value in assisting governments at all levels to formulate policy. At the Federal level, through our recent reorganization of the Executive Office of the President, we have the means through the Domestic Council and the Office of Management and Budget to follow up on the Commission's report. The recommendations of the Commission will be taken into account as we formulate our national growth and population research policies, and our agency budgets through these processes for the years ahead.

Many of the questions raised by the report cannot be answered purely on the basis of fact, but rather involve moral judgments about which reasonable men will disagree. I hope that the discussions ahead will be informed ones, so that we all will be better able to face these questions relating to population in full knowledge of the consequences of our decisions. (Statement About the Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future.)

The confusion inherent in this statement is as mind-boggling as anything contained in the late Joseph Alois Ratzinger's very misnamed Principles of Catholic Theology.

Nixon believed in "the right of married couples to make these judgments for themselves" when, of course, no human being has any right to use contraceptive pills or devices at any time for any reason as to do so is to violate the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage. Although most contraceptives abort and abort most of the time, contraception is in and of itself a violation of the immutable laws of God that bind the consciences of all human beings at all times in all places and under all circumstances without any exception, reservation or qualification whatsoever. One who supports "family planning" as a matter of principle does not believe in God as He has revealed Himself through His true Church and is thus incapable of serving as a agent in behalf of the common temporal good undertaken as it must be in light of man's Last End.

The globalist scheme to depopulate the earth is working well in many places, including in Red China itself, where Chicom leaders recognize the demographic trends that could lead to a seventy percent reduction in its indigenous population in a century or so if, of course, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ does not intervene directly to put an end to the madness taking place in the world and in the counterfeit church of conciliarism:

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has created an economic model that is unsustainable. 

Official corruption and mismanagement of the economy, the crushing of creativity and innovation in the name of control, the recklessly escalating debt, and the destruction of the environment are all factors that will contribute to the coming collapse.

China’s real estate market is already almost there, with the country’s largest developers, such as Evergrande, teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and buyers furious over unfinished homes they have already paid for.  

But it is the wanton destruction of human capital by the Communists over the past 75 years that has not only brought that collapse nearer but virtually ensured that China may never rise again.

The one-child policy in particular has resulted in the elimination of some 400 million of the most productive, hardworking, enterprising people on the planet.  

Roughly half of each of the past two generations of Chinese never saw the light of day because of abortions coerced under the one-child policy. 

Moreover, the rabidly anti-natal propaganda of the policy has helped to create a culture in which children are no longer valued but rather rejected as expensive luxuries.

When the government finally ended the one-child policy in 2016, it rosily predicted that the total fertility rate — defined as the number of births per woman over her reproductive lifetime — would rebound to 1.8. 

But China’s birthrate not only did not recover, it continued to fall.

In 2022, only 9.56 million children were born.  

Earlier this year, the CCP’s National Bureau of Statistics finally admitted that China has one of the lowest birth rates in the world.

The official figures claim that the fertility rate in 2022 was 1.09 children per woman, which only suggests that the real numbers are even lower. 

Before the beginning of the one-child policy in 1981 Chinese women were averaging 2.7 children, a number that the policy quickly cut in half.  

However, since officials exaggerate their successes and hide their failures, exact numbers are hard to come by. 

For example, China claims that its current population is 1.41 billion people.

University of Wisconsin demographer Yi Fuxian, however, drawing upon a wide array of data, has concluded that the actual number is actually less than 1.28 billion.  

This discrepancy of 130 million is not a mere rounding error. 

It is a number larger than the population of all but nine of the world’s countries. 

It is the result of a systematic exaggeration of the number of births in China over the past few decades.  China’s population is aging faster than the CCP is willing to admit. 

And, for the first time since Mao Zedong’s great famine of 1959-1961, China’s population is falling. 

The “demographic dividend” that supported China’s rapid economic growth, military buildup, and strategic expansion is gone. Instead, as the number of working-age Chinese declines, labor costs will rise, and an increasing proportion of the economy will go to caring for the growing population of elderly.

Other East Asian countries, like Japan and South Korea, also have rapidly aging populations.  But unlike China, they grew rich before they grew old. 

China is still a middle-income country, with hundreds of millions living in abject poverty. 

The baby bust also explains why China’s economy will probably not recover from its current doldrums, regardless of what mix of economic policies the central government adopts. 

None of the tools available — such as lower interest rates, export subsidies, and infrastructure investment — will compensate or 100 million empty cradles. 

Not to mention that falling tax revenues and unsustainable government debt are limiting the CCP’s policy choices to begin with.

China’s problems will accelerate as the population collapse picks up steam. 

If — and it is a big if — the CCP is able to stabilize the fertility rate at 1.1, Professor Yi’s projections show that China’s population would still decline to 440 million by 2100. 

However, given the rising reluctance of young Chinese women to have children, it seems more likely that the fertility rate will come to approximate Hong Kong’s current 0.8. 

If that is the case, there will only be 310 million people alive in China by the end of the century.

Either way, the results will be catastrophic, both for the Chinese economy and for the CCP’s rapacious geopolitical ambitions.

The 21^st century will not belong to China after all.

To put China’s coming demographic collapse in perspective, compare its numbers to those of its chief self-declared rival, the United States of America. 

America’s population currently stands at 340 million — and still growing. 

By the year 2060, the population of the U.S. is projected to be 417 million, and on track to surpass that of China in the decades following. 

As China’s population contracts, so will its geopolitical ambitions, as the CCP is forced to focus its attention on maintaining internal stability.

But even should the Chinese Communist Party fall, so intractable is China’s birth dearth that it would be a major challenge to overcome for any future government, however democratic.

The CCP’s leaders from Mao Ze-dong onward have always treated China’s masses as an inexhaustible resource that they could squander at will. 

Neither Deng Xiaoping nor any of his successors could ever imagined that their brutal one-child policy would result in the death of the Chinese dream.

But just as surely as they buried the 400 million little victims of their one-child policy in unmarked graves, they have buried their own dreams of world domination. (China's population is falling from its former 'one-child' policy.)

It is only fitting that Red China, a land that had a rich cultural history with plenteous resources prior to the Communist revolutionary takeover on May 1, 1949, is suffering from its forced abortion, forced sterilization, and one-child-per-family policies, and it is only just that a government whose monstrous leaders know no moral bounds and consider human beings to be units of production bereft of rational immortal souls whose lives must be treated with respect and dignity is in the grips of demographic trends will lead to a drastic reduction of its population as it has been so cannibalistic as to vivisect vital bodily organs from political prisoners for sale on the black market organ network and has permitted the bodies of butchered babies to be served as “Cream of Fetus” in restaurants.

The late Dr. Harry Wu, who was imprisoned in a Red Chinese slave labor camp for nineteen years, said at a conference in Montvale, New Jersey, in 1987 at which I was also a speaker that it was a common practice in the laogais (Red Chinese slave labor camps) for political prisoners and other prisoners to be dissected without anesthesia while they were alive for their vital body parts. Obviously, this was a form of execution for those prisoners. The Red Chinese finally got around to admitting this when they instituted a Red Cross-sponsored program for "voluntary" organ donation in their so-called "people's republic:"

China launched a national organ donation system yesterday in a bid to gradually shake off its long-time dependence on executed prisoners as a major source of organs for transplants and as part of efforts to crack down on organ trafficking.

The system, operated mainly by the Red Cross Society of China with assistance from the Ministry of Health, will begin as pilot projects in 10 provinces and cities.

"The system is in the public interest and will benefit patients regardless of social status and wealth in terms of fairness in organ allocation and better procurement," said Vice-Minister of Health Huang Jiefu.

Under the system, the Red Cross is responsible for encouraging post-death organ donations among the public, receiving donor registrations, keeping a database, starting a fund to provide financial assistance for needy, surviving families of donors and overseeing the allocation of donated organs according to set principles.

"Transplants should not be a privilege for the rich," Huang said.

The late, famous Chinese actor Fu Biao received two liver transplants within several months in 2005, raising doubts about the fairness of organ allocation, given that the waiting time for the general public can be years - even if one is lucky enough to get a match, let alone have a second surgery.

Currently about one million people in China need organ transplants each year while only 1 percent receive one, official statistics show.

Only about 130 people on the mainland have signed up to donate their organs since 2003, according to research on the promotion of organ donation after death by professor Chen Zhonghua with the Institute of Organ Transplantation of Tongji Hospital.

The system will help find more willing donors who didn't know how to donate, said Jiang Yiman, the society's deputy director at the launch yesterday in Shanghai. "The Chinese have a tradition of helping others in need and the potential of organ donations from the public is yet to be tapped," she said.

Organ donors

Executed prisoners, who experts estimate account for more than 65 percent of total donors, "are definitely not a proper source for organ transplants," said Vice-Minister Huang.

That the rights of death-row prisoners to donate is fully respected and written consent from them is required, he told China Daily.

Qian Jianmin, chief transplant surgeon with the Shanghai Huashan Hospital, said hospitals performing transplants not only treat patients getting organs from executed prisoners, but have to deal with other levels of government, including the justice department.

"Corruption can arise during the process," he said.

Some just ignore legal procedures regarding organ donations from executed prisoners and make a fat profit, Huang said.

All costs are passed on to patients. Sometimes the recipient pays up to 200,000 yuan ($29,000) for a kidney, not including other medical services.

China issued an organ transplant law in 2007 that bans organ trafficking and only allows donations from living people to blood relatives and spouses, plus someone considered "emotionally connected."

However, organ middlemen have been faking documents in order to make a person who is desperately in need of money be considered "emotionally connected" to the recipients, reports said.

Living transplants increased to 40 percent of total transplants from 15 percent in 2006, Chen Zhonghua said.

"That's one of the daunting tasks facing us as we try to end the organ trade by establishing this system," Huang noted.

Other goals include preventing organ tourism, improving transplant quality, better defining donors' rights and satisfying patients' needs for transplants in an ethical manner.

"With more organ donations from the public, the total cost for transplants will decrease," he said.

The exact cost for transplants varies from place to place and largely remains an industry secret. But experts said it's at least 100,000 yuan.

Praise for initiative

"We welcome the emphasis put on fair practice in organ procurement, allocation and transplant, echoing the WHO guiding principles on transplantation," said Luc Noel, coordinator of clinical procedures in the essential health technologies department at World Health Organization headquarters in Geneva.

"China is establishing the national network and authority necessary to initiate and maximize organ donations from deceased donors and thus progress towards the global mainstream in organ donation and transplantation," he said.

The system will be operated at both State and provincial levels. Donated organs would be allocated locally first and then nationally.

"My colleagues and I welcome the system, which will facilitate our efforts to save more patients and help medical workers concentrate more on practicing medicine," said transplant surgeon Qian, whose hospital performs about 150 transplants each year.

Wang Yuling, a young white-collar worker in Beijing, said she'd donate if it really helps someone in need instead of making someone rich.

The pilot projects will take place across the country, including Shanghai, Tianjin, Fujian (Xiamen), Jiangsu (Nanjing), Hubei (Wuhan), Liaoning, Shandong and Jiangxi. The system will then be introduced nationwide, Jiang said.

When asked for a specific timetable when the system will cover the whole country, Huang said the process took 20 years in United States.

"I hope it'll be faster in China. We are still searching for the best way," he said.

"Details about the system, like how to clearly define responsibilities for all stakeholders under the system, including the Red Cross and health administrations, are still under discussion," Jiang said. (Public Call for Organs in Red China.)

Human rights activists said Tuesday that a thriving black market in body parts for transplantation has been illuminated by the arrests of two men on charges of trying to illegally sell organs from executed Chinese prisoners.

The two men, Cheng Yong Wang - who told undercover investigators he had been a prosecutor on Hainan Island in China - and Xingqi Fu - a Chinese citizen living in New York - were seized after meeting with an FBI agent posing as a medical executive.

The undercover agent said he was interested in receiving corneas, kidneys, pancreases, livers, lungs, skin and other organs.

According to court papers, Wang, 41, signed two contracts making him responsible for coordinating with relevant Chinese government agencies and hospitals in securing organs for transplants and would receive a commission amounting to 25 percent of the total cost of each transplant case.

Prosecutors charged that Fu, 35, planned to smuggle corneas into the United States for sale to physicians.

Prosecutors said that earlier in February, prior to a Feb. 20 meeting with the government operative, Wang conferred in a New York hotel room with Harry Wu, a well-known human rights activist who then acted as a government informant. Wang allegedly said he was interested in selling kidneys from executed Chinese prisoners.

“Wang went into business a long time ago,” the human rights activist charged. “His position is prosecutor. He supervised executions, controlled execution sites.”

Sidney Jones, executive director of the Asia division of Human Rights Watch, said that if the charges prove true, “it indicates the organ trade has established itself in the United States.

“This is a practice that has been going on for a long time. Most of the patients have been from Hong Kong and Taiwan where they have been willing to pay a large sum of money to go to China to get the organ transplants,” Jones said. “Now, it is clear, the trade is global.”

n announcing the arrests Monday, U.S. Attorney Jo White said the defendants offered to sell two corneas for $5,000 and Fu had promised the FBI agent that lungs would come from nonsmokers.

“Trafficking and profiteering in human organs is ghoulish, criminal conduct that imperils the most vulnerable,” White said.

Chinese authorities claim that transplants occur only sparingly and only after prisoners who face the death sentence voluntarily agree to donate organs.

This is strongly disputed by Human Rights Watch.

A report issued in 1994 by the group charged that “in recent years, it has become increasingly evident that executed prisoners are the principal source of supply of body organs for medical transplantation purposes in China.”

“The consent of prisoners to use their organs after death, although required by law, appears rarely to be sought,” the report said. (Two Accused of Trying to Sell Bodily Organs from Red China.)

Little details such as the simple fact that it is impossible to take a heart or a liver out of the body of a dead person for the sake transplantation are not included in this news story from China Daily last year. The nasty little secret that the body snatchers don't want most people to know is that living human beings must be killed in order to harvest their hearts or livers for purposes of being transplanted into other human beings. This is true in Red China. It is true in the United States of America. It is true everywhere. Although one can, if one chooses, donate a lung or a kidney, no one can remove a heart or a liver without killing the person from whom such organs are extracted. It is that simple. Moral truth always is simple.

As mentioned just a above, the late Dr. Harry Wu documented the system of the Laogai forced-labor prison camp system in Red China as a result of his own nineteen-year (1960-1979) imprisonment in the manner that Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn documented the existence and the extent of the brutality, including psychiatric abuses of the most monstrous kind as drawn from his own eight years of imprisonment and torture in twelve different Soviet gulags. Dr, Wu confirmed the fact that aborted babies were served in soup in Chinese restaurants when I asked him about various news reports concerning this barbaric practice in 1997 when we were speakers at a Roman Forum conference in Montvale, New Jersey. Dr. Wu also noted that he personally witnessed political prisoners being carved up for their body parts while they were fully conscious without the pretext of “brain death” used by the merchants of death in the supposedly “civilized” United States of America.

Yes, the killers of the East and West are committed to the destruction of innocent human life under one pretext or another, something that Dr. Aleksandr I, Solzhenitsyn explained in his famous “A World Split Apart” at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, on June 8, 1978:

It is almost universally recognized that the West shows all the world a way to successful economic development, even though in the past years it has been strongly disturbed by chaotic inflation. However, many people living in the West are dissatisfied with their own society. They despise it or accuse it of not being up to the level of maturity attained by mankind. A number of such critics turn to socialism, which is a false and dangerous current.

I hope that no one present will suspect me of offering my personal criticism of the Western system to present socialism as an alternative. Having experienced applied socialism in a country where the alternative has been realized, I certainly will not speak for it. The well-known Soviet mathematician Shafarevich, a member of the Soviet Academy of Science, has written a brilliant book under the title Socialism; it is a profound analysis showing that socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death. Shafarevich's book was published in France almost two years ago and so far no one has been found to refute it. It will shortly be published in the United States. (Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart, June 8, 1978, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.)

Red China has long been involved in the business of the leveling of mankind unto death and the West, steeped in religious indifferentism and raw utilitarianism, has been doing so in one form or another for the past two hundred years, especially by means of contraction, abortion, sterilization, euthanasia, “brain death”/human organ vivisection, the starvation and dehydration of innocent beings, “palliative care”/hospice. outright eugenics, and the development and deployment of biological weapons, including bioengineered virus, although it should be noted that the path to Modernity’s bloodletting started with that unleashed by the Protestant Revolution’s violent revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man’s return to Him through His Catholic Church.

Third, the “vaccines” continue to injure and kill countless numbers of people. Even some who have “got the jab,” such as commentator/interviewer Megyn Kelly, have expressed regret at doing so:

'Thank God I didn’t stick [my children] with that vaccine. I’m sorry I did it to myself. I’ve said this before, but I regret getting the vaccine,' the conservative talk show host said.

Conservative Sirius XM talk show host Megyn Kelly revealed this week that she tested positive for “an autoimmune issue” for the first time after her injection with the experimental COVID-19 vaccines.

In a Wednesday conversation about lack of transparency from health officials during the pandemic with writer David Zweig on The Megyn Kelly Show, the host revealed that she developed an unspecified “autoimmune issue” after taking the shots, a decision that she now “regrets.”

Kelly began her comments on the vaccine by saying, “Thank God I didn’t stick [my children] with that vaccine. I’m sorry I did it to myself. I’ve said this before, but I regret getting the vaccine, even though I’m a 52-year-old woman, because I don’t think I needed it.”

“I think I would have been fine,” she continued. “I’d gotten COVID many times and it was well past when the vaccine was doing what it was supposed to be doing. And then, for the first time, I tested positive for an autoimmune issue at my annual physical.”

Kelly explained how she “went to the best rheumatologist in New York and I asked her, ‘Do you think this could have to do with the fact that I got the d*** booster and then got COVID within three weeks? and she said yes. I wasn’t the only one she’d seen that with.”

Zweig then commented on the mistake made by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other health leaders during the pandemic when they “refused to give an honest and sort of broad picture of things.” When it came to openly discussing the potential benefits and risks of the experimental shots, he said, “the CDC repeatedly and consistently downplayed the issue of myocarditis, particularly in young males.”

“Masks were repeatedly downplayed,” Zweig added. “We were gaslit.”

He pointed out that a more appropriate approach would have been to “say that the vaccine is beneficial for some people and we really strongly recommend it, but we’re not certain that this is, on the net cost benefit, that it makes sense for everyone. That would have been honest.”

In addition to the extensive evidence of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination, research from this year alone has also shown alarming rates of miscarriages and still births as well as higher risks of visual impairment.

Kelly’s public regret of taking the shots — which she was adamantly against giving to kids since the rollout of the vaccines — comes amid speculation that COVID mandates will return this fall as infections increase with the new academic year. As previously reported by LifeSiteNews, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is set to approve updated booster shots within the week, putting them on the market as early as September 13.

The director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO) has also urged people to take the new shots, arguing that “COVID is here to stay.”

While the federal government appears to be pushing to revamp the pandemic, conservative Americans are already preparing to reject whatever unfounded mandates are imposed, taking on the mantra “do not comply.” (Megyn Kelly says she regrets COVID shots after developing 'autoimmune issue'.)

Although I dispute the contention that the “vaccines” developed under then President Donald John Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed” was, considering all the long term consequences that may not be known for decades, at which point mainslime, bought-and-paid-for “scientists” will debunk any linkage between long term adverse effects of the time bombs put into the bodies of human beings that will detonate in due course and the diseases that will continue to multiply in the years ahead.

It is entirely plausible that many illnesses afflicting people as they age, including cancer and heart disease, have been caused by the vaccines that they received as infants and in their childhood. It is not for nothing that Dr. Albert Sabin, the developer of the oral poliomyelitis vaccine, worried about whether his vaccine contained “wild cards” that could cause cancer and even Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome diseases in recipients for decades to come:

(NaturalNews) One of the most prominent vaccine scientists in the history of the vaccine industry -- a Merck scientist -- made a recording where he openly admits that vaccines given to Americans were contaminated with leukemia and cancer viruses. In response, his colleagues (who are also recorded here) break out into laughter and seem to think it's hilarious. They then suggest that because these vaccines are first tested in Russia, they will help the U.S. win the Olympics because the Russian athletes will all be "loaded down with tumors." (Thus, they knew these vaccines caused cancer in humans.)

This isn't some conspiracy theory -- these are the words of a top Merck scientist who probably had no idea that his recording would be widely reviewed across the internet (which didn't even exist when he made this recording). He probably thought this would remain a secret forever. When asked why this didn't get out to the press, he replied "Obviously you don't go out, this is a scientific affair within the scientific community."

In other words, vaccine scientists cover for vaccine scientists. They keep all their dirty secrets within their own circle of silence and don't reveal the truth about the contamination of their vaccines.

You can hear this interview at:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=13EAAF22CDA367...

Here is the full transcript. (Thanks are due to Dr. Len Horowitz for finding this recording and making it publicly available.)

 Dr Edward Shorter: Ah, right…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: Yeah, they had jumped on the Sabin's band wagon and they had asked me to come down and give a talk at the Sister Kinney Foundation meeting and I saw it was an international meeting and god, what am I going to talk about? I know what I'm going to do, I'm going to talk about the detection of non detectable viruses as a topic.

Dr Albert Sabin …there were those who didn't want a live virus vaccine… (unintelligible) …concentrated all its efforts on getting more and more people to use the killed virus vaccine, while they were supporting me for research on the live viruses.

Dr Maurice Hilleman: So now I got to have something (laughter), you know that going to attract attention. And gee, I thought that damn SV40, I mean that damn vaculating agent that we have, I'm just going to pick that particular one, that virus has got to be in vaccines, it's got to be in the Sabin's vaccines so I quick tested it (laughter) and sure enough it was in there.

Dr Edward Shorter: I'll be damned

Dr Maurice Hilleman: … And so now…

Dr Edward Shorter: …so you just took stocks of Sabin's vaccines off the shelf here at Merck…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …yeah, well it had been made, it was made at Merck…

Dr Edward Shorter: You were making it for Sabin at this point?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …Yeah, it was made before I came…

Dr Edward Shorter: yeah, but at this point Sabin is still just doing massive field trials…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …uh huh

Dr Edward Shorter: okay,

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …in Russia and so forth. So I go down and I talked about the detection of non detectable viruses and told Albert, I said listen Albert you know you and I are good friends but I'm going to go down there and you're going to get upset. I'm going to talk about the virus that it's in your vaccine. You're going to get rid of the virus, don't worry about it, you're going to get rid of it… but umm, so of course Albert was very upset...

Dr Edward Shorter: What did he say?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …well he said basically, that this is just another obfuscation that's going to upset vaccines. I said well you know, you're absolutely right, but we have a new era here we have a new era of the detection and the important thing is to get rid of these viruses.

Dr Edward Shorter: Why would he call it an obfuscation if it was a virus that was contaminating the vaccine?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …well there are 40 different viruses in these vaccines anyway that we were inactivating and uh,

Dr Edward Shorter: but you weren't inactivating his though…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …no that's right, but yellow fever vaccine had leukemia virus in it and you know this was in the days of very crude science. So anyway I went down and talked to him and said well, why are you concerned about it? Well I said "I'll tell you what, I have a feeling in my bones that this virus is different, I don't know why to tell you this but I …(unintelligible) …I just think this virus will have some long term effects." And he said what? And I said "cancer". (laughter) I said Albert, you probably think I'm nuts, but I just have that feeling. Well in the mean time we had taken this virus and put it into monkeys and into hamsters. So we had this meeting and that was sort of the topic of the day and the jokes that were going around was that "gee, we would win the Olympics because the Russians would all be loaded down with tumors." (laughter) This was where the vaccine was being tested, this was where… so, uhh, and it really destroyed the meeting and it was sort of the topic. Well anyway…

Dr Edward Shorter: Was this the physicians… (unintelligible) …meeting in New York?

Dr Maurice Hilleman …well no, this was at Sister Kinney…

Dr Edward Shorter: Sister Kinney, right…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …and Del Becco (sp) got up and he foresaw problems with these kinds of agents.

Dr Edward Shorter: Why didn't this get out into the press?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …well, I guess it did I don't remember. We had no press release on it. Obviously you don't go out, this is a scientific affair within the scientific community…

Voice of news reporter: …an historic victory over a dread disease is dramatically unfolded at the U of Michigan. Here scientists usher in a new medical age with the monumental reports that prove that the Salk vaccine against crippling polio to be a sensational success. It's a day of triumph for 40 year old Dr. Jonas E Salk developer of the vaccine. He arrives here with Basil O'Connor the head of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis that financed the tests. Hundreds of reporters and scientists gathered from all over the nation gathered for the momentous announcement….

Dr Albert Sabin: …it was too much of a show, it was too much Hollywood. There was too much exaggeration and the impression in 1957 that was, no in 1954 that was given was that the problem had been solved, polio had been conquered.

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …but, anyway we knew it was in our seed stock from making vaccines. That virus you see, is one in 10,000 particles is not an activated… (unintelligible) …it was good science at the time because that was what you did. You didn't worry about these wild viruses.

Dr Edward Shorter: So you discovered, it wasn't being inactivated in the Salk vaccine?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …Right. So then the next thing you know is, 3, 4 weeks after that we found that there were tumors popping up on these hamsters.

Dr. Len Horowitz: Despite AIDS and Leukemia suddenly becoming pandemic from "wild viruses" Hilleman said, this was "good science" at that time.

NaturalNews wishes to thank Dr. Len Horowitz for uncovering this interview from the national archives, and for getting it released so the public can learn the truth behind the deadly vaccine industry. (Prominent Merck Vaccine Researcher Admitted the Presence of SV40, AIDS, and Cancer Viruses in Vaccines.)

“Safe and effective?”

In a pig’s eye, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and Donald John Trump.

In a pig’s eye.

Albert Sabin’s frank concession about the dangers inherent in his own polio vaccine, which many of us “baby boomers” took without question in our schools, contrasts with the refusal of today’s “get rick quick” lords of depopulation’s to admit any harm, whether present or long term, involved with their “salvific” jabs whose full effects may never be known until eternity.

Megyn Kelly’s admission about regretting getting the Wuhan Virus vaccine prompted a physician to write a study that he sent to Dr. Joseph Mercola to publish anonymously. Here is a truncated version of this study:

There were three highly unusual characteristics of the COVID vaccines:

• From the start, they were highly controversial and opinions on them largely split along partisan lines.
• Despite the previous, they were eventually mandated upon the entire population.
• The vaccines had an unprecedented degree of toxicity, to the point so many were injured that the majority of the population is worried about their side effects, almost half of vaccinated American adults believe they suffered an adverse reaction, and half of America believes the COVID vaccines are causing a wave of unexpected deaths.

This in turn has understandably shaken the lifelong trust many Americans held in our institutions and also has created a tragic political situation for the vaccine injured. Since the left strongly endorsed the vaccines, admitting you had an adverse reaction is a direct affront to their tribe. As a result, many liberals I’ve talked to have told me they’ve had to stay silent about their injury or risk being excommunicated.

Likewise, in the medical field, because the faith in the vaccines was so powerful, stating you had an injury was viewed as being equivalent to medical malpractice since it might encourage others not to receive the "life-saving" COVID vaccine. For example, a California doctor who has treated thousands of vaccine injured patients frequently saw local nurses only discover their co-workers had also been injured because they met each other in his waiting room.

The psychological burden vaccine injured people in those industries face is thus hard to put into words — their bodies and lives are falling apart, no one can tell them what to do (or even how to fix it) and if they speak publicly, they risk economically blacklisting themselves. As a result, I know of many VIPs and celebrities who are vaccine injured and are being treated in private but are not going public with it as they are afraid of losing their careers.

Similarly, for those working in the media (which is largely funded by the pharmaceutical industry), regardless of what they see happening to themselves, their friends or their families, they can’t speak out on the issue because of the professional risks they face for doing so. As a result, the only news hosts I know who have spoken out against the vaccine are those who left the networks to build their own platforms.

Note: The one exception I know was Tucker Carlson — who was fired immediately after giving a scathing critique of the vaccine campaign and the media’s complicity in it. Since then on Twitter, he built one of the largest independent media platforms in the world, and has increased his criticism of the vaccines (where amongst other things he stated he never got vaccinated).

For example:

•Sharyl Attkisson, a renowned Emmy-Award Winning Investigative Journalist left her prime time spot after she became fed up with management censoring her stories to became a truly independent journalist. She has repeatedly reported on the COVID-19 vaccine injuries and just hosted a town hall on treating them.

•Jimmy Dore, a popular comic who was featured on many major networks, in 2009 started building his own talk show. After being injured early in the vaccine campaign, he got red-pilled and decided to share it with his audience. For example, see this July 2021 interview describes his injury and discusses the hatred those injured by vaccines face:

In 2017, Megyn Kelly, one of the most popular news anchors in America decided to leave Fox news and then began building her own platform. Like Dore, she now has over a million subscribers on YouTube and has given a voice to outsiders like Robert Kennedy Jr.

Kelly also initially supported the vaccine (see this tweet and her reply to it), suffered a vaccine injury, got red-pilled and has since had the courage (and economic ability) to share her concerns publicly. These remarks (which I’d recommend watching as they touch on numerous important points) were clipped from her recent show:

Note: To provide more context for Fauci’s remarks in this clip, contrary to what he said there, as detailed in Scott Atlas MD’s excellent memoir, Fauci not only zealously supported the lockdowns, but actively sabotaged any attempts to repeal them from both within the White House and throughout the national media.

Specifically in regards to her injury Kelly stated:

“I’m sorry I did to myself … I regret getting the vaccine. I don’t think I needed it, I think I would have been fine. I’d got COVID many times, and I — it was well past when the vaccine was doing what it was supposed to be doing.

And then, for the first time, I tested positive for an autoimmune issue at my annual physical, and I went to the best rheumatologist in New York, and I asked her, “Do you think this could have to do with the fact that I got the damn booster and then got COVID within three weeks?” And she said yes. Yes. I wasn’t the only one she’d seen that with.”

Note: Some have also suggested the tragic sudden cardiac death of Kelly’s sister in October of 2022 may have changed her perspective on the vaccines, but I was unable to find anything confirming this.

Vaccines and Autoimmunity

The adaptive immune system works by producing lots of white blood cells with a random protein sequence on them, and then waiting until a foreign protein (henceforth termed an antigen) comes into contact with a white blood cell whose random sequence matches the antigen.

Once this occurs, a signal is set off for the white blood cell to copy itself, and large numbers of white blood cells matching that cell form which can then bind to the new antigen and thereby protect the body from it.

While this approach has served our species well, it’s not perfect because it takes time (the right cell has to stumble across the antigen), and sometimes the needed adaptive response doesn’t form at all. The theory behind vaccination is that since infectious microbes continually reproduce inside the body, by the time an adaptive immunity forms, the infection may have progressed too far and your immunity can no longer save you (or it does but the disease you go through will be much worse).

Vaccines work by introducing one or more of the antigens from the microbe to the body and allowing you to develop an adaptive immunity to it so that when the actual (reproducing) microbe enters your body, your adaptive immunity can kick into gear before the microbe overwhelms the body. While this sounds good in theory, there are a variety ways where it runs into issue in real life.

One of them arises from the fact that for vaccines to be approved, they have to reliably stimulate an adaptive immune response to their antigen. In order for that to happen, vaccines either need to directly inject a lot of the antigen or cause the antigen to reproduce inside the body (e.g., the measles vaccine is a replicating virus), so that in either case, enough of the vaccine antigen can come into contact with the immune system for its adaptive process to occur.

Since antigens are expensive, it’s often not commercially feasible to produce enough of them for an injection to generate the desired immune response. To solve this problem, vaccines are often mixed with adjuvants which stimulate the immune system into responding to the nearby vaccine antigens. Furthermore, some antigens are more difficult to elicit a reliable response from (the ones from HPV being a classic example) and in turn require even stronger adjuvants to be used.

A major problem with provoking the immune system to produce an immune response to the vaccine antigen is that it can trigger an immune response to other antigens as well — such as those the body needs to function. For example, one study showed that mice developed allergies to pollens that were in the air at the time of their vaccination.

This becomes more of an issue when antigens in vaccines partially match those in human tissue. For example, the hepatitis B vaccine has a significant overlap with myelin (which coats your nerves and thereby allows the nerves to function).

Because of this, debilitating demyelinating disorders (e.g., multiple sclerosis) have been associated with hepatitis B vaccination, and one study showed approximately half of its recipients also developed immune reactivity to myelin (which in the majority of cases persisted for over 6 months).

Since autoimmunity is a longstanding issue with vaccines, an excellent textbook has been written compiling the numerous autoimmune disorders known to emerge from each vaccine due to the specific makeup of their antigens. Likewise, many have suspected the epidemic of autoimmunity in this country is due to increasing childhood vaccinations as:

Autoimmune disorders are dramatically lower in unvaccinated children (e.g., see this study and this study).

The rise of autoimmune (and allergic) disorders in this country has directly paralleled the rise of the number of required vaccinations. . . .

Anyone who had the good sense and, in a lot instances, sacrificed their careers and financial security to refuse to get jabbed must thank Our Lady for sending them the graces they needed to resist these diabolical potions, which have been developed from the cells of butchered babies, that have caused so many injuries and deaths, including many sudden and unexpected deaths. Those who have had this good sense to resist the “vaccines” because they recognize the harm they are nothing than witches’ brews that pollute the body, which is the Temple of God the Holy Ghost, must continue to pray to Our Lady for the graces to remain steadfast against the coming attempts to mandate newer and even more dangerous potions that are designed not to prevent or to mitigate the effects of any virus but to kill off as many people as possible and to leave those disabled by the jabs at the “mercy” of the “merciless” who ease them into “comfort care’ and thus into their graves without any true effort being made to use detoxification therapies that, as noted in part two of this series, Dr. Peter A. McCullough and others have developed precisely for this purpose.