...cont'd from JFK DOC SAVED BABIES FROM THALIDOMIDE

To Orwell Today Readers,

There have been few heroes in the medical field since Dr Kelsey of Thalidomide fame in the late 50s. The next best hero is Dr Wakefield from England who, in late 90s, discovered that Autism was caused by the triple-hit Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine. But, unlike Dr Kelsey, there was no president like JFK to reward him and, instead, the medical establishment -- aided and abetted by the Orwellian media -- performed their roles in destroying him. But luckily for Wakefield there was a JFK nephew -- Robert F Kennedy Jr, son of JFK's brother, Bobby -- to rescue him and help spread the MMR warning in America and the world.

It should be obvious to people with only basic critical thinking skills that there is, in fact, a raging Autism plandemic in America and the common denominator is the MMR vaccine.

Autism is so rampant it's even got a month named in its honour -- just like Breast Cancer (a side effect of abortion) and all the other months dedicated to diseases, many of which are collateral damage of drugs and vaccines injected from birth to dying day.

But Big Brother government controls the minds of we the masses -- telling us nonsence and keeping us in a state of ignorance -- like mushrooms kept in the dark and fed bullshit.

They treat we human beings like chimps and, if they get their way, will make the world a zoo. And, as in a zoo, any creature misbehaving, or going off its meds, will be zapped.

Orwell warned about scientific experimentation in 1984, when he said:

The first true hero in uncovering the Autism conspiracy -- which inspired Dr Wakefield to his MMR Eureka moment -- was "a mother", the most vital person in a child's life -- who observed her child change from perfectly normal to mentally and physically damaged, overnight, after being injected with the MMR vaccine. She put 2 plus 2 together and got 4, and when she went to the doctor for help, and told him exactly what happened, he believed her, and thus began his quest to search for answers.

As I've written before, in relation to abortion, "until he emerges, fully formed at birth, his mother is his only protector".

But of course, after the baby emerges, his mother is STILL, instinctively, his only protector. Decisions she makes about his care and safety are life and death and will be for many years.

In the video linked at the top of the page Dr Wakefield explains, in an interview, why he believes what he believes. Imagine yourself sitting in his consulting room and him listening to you and saying he understands you and is going to help -- he just oozes the highest standards of what it means to be a doctor.

Below is history of Dr Andrew Wakefield's saga -- including the transcript of his interview shown in the movie VAXXED I or II -- there now being a third VAXXED movie which just came out -- all made possible by RFK-jr through his website THE DEFENDER: CHILDREN'S HEALTH DEFENSE:

..."Big Red Flag" Gates Foundation gets Diplomatic Immunity in Kenya... House floats law to make colleges that mandated COVID shots pay for vaccine injuries... Study of 1.7 million kids and teens found heart inflammation only in those who got Pfizer's COVID shots... 1 in 33 kids ages 5 to 8 has Autism...

Above are headline pages from the most recent DEFENDER editions showing a day in the life of RFK-jr, a modern-day St George slaying the dragon and carrying the torch for our generation.

All the best,
Jackie Jura, November 2024

October 1988: The three-in-one measles, mumps and rubella vaccine is introduced to the UK after successful use in the USA. Previously, single measles and rubella vaccines were used, and there was no mumps vaccine.

September 1992: The Department of Health withdraws two brands of MMR vaccine after research suggests they are associated with a raised incidence of transient mumps meningitis, although much lower than with natural disease.

February 1998: The Lancet publishes a 12-patient case series by Andrew Wakefield and 12 others, proposing a link between MMR and a "new syndrome" of Autism and bowel disease. At a press conference, Wakefield urges the use of single vaccines instead of MMR.

January 2001: The Daily Mail and other newspapers launch campaigns backing Dr Wakefield after he publishes a purported review of his evidence and repeats his calls for single vaccines.

December 2001: The Prime Minister Tony Blair is ambushed by Dr Wakefield's supporters, who claim Mr Blair's son Leo did not have the MMR jab. The Blairs initially decline to comment but later deny the claim.

February 2004: An investigation by Brian Deer of The Sunday Times reveals that the Legal Aid Board funded the Lancet research and that many of the children were litigants.

March 2004: Ten of the 1998 paper's 13 authors, excluding Dr Wakefield, retract its "interpretation" section, which claimed an association in time between MMR, enterocolitis, and regressive developmental disorders.

April 2006: As measles outbreaks occur across Britain, the first death in the UK from the disease in 14 years is reported.

July 2007: The General Medical Council opens its case alleging serious professional misconduct by Dr Wakefield and two co-authors of the Lancet paper.

February 2010: The Lancet retracts the 1998 paper. The editor Richard Horton describes aspects of it as "utterly false" and says he "felt deceived".

May 2010: After a 217-day inquiry, the GMC panel finds Dr Wakefield guilty of serious professional misconduct and orders that his name be struck off the medical register.

The doctor who first suggested a link between MMR vaccinations and autism is to be struck off the medical register. The General Medical Council found Dr Andrew Wakefield guilty of serious professional misconduct over the way he carried out his controversial research. It follows a GMC ruling earlier this year that he had acted unethically. Dr Wakefield, who is now based in the US, has consistently claimed the allegations are unfair. He now says he will appeal against the verdict. His 1998 LANCET study caused vaccination rates to plummet, resulting in a rise in measles -- but the findings were later discredited. The GMC ruled in January Dr Wakefield had acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in conducting his research, but under its procedures the sanctions are made at a later date. The case did not investigate whether Dr Wakefield's findings were right or wrong, instead it focused on the methods of research. The panel concluded that it is the only sanction that is appropriate to protect patients and is in the wider public interest. During the two-and-a-half-year case, the longest in GMC history, Dr Wakefield was accused of carrying out invasive tests on vulnerable children which were against their best interests. The GMC also said Dr Wakefield, who was working at London's Royal Free Hospital as a gastroenterologist at the time, did not have the ethical approval or relevant qualifications for such tests. And the panel hearing the case took exception with the way he gathered blood samples. Dr Wakefield paid children 5-pounds for the samples at his son's birthday party. It also said Dr Wakefield should have disclosed the fact that he had been paid to advise solicitors acting for parents who believed their children had been harmed by the MMR.

Serious misconduct: In making the verdict on the sanctions, Dr Surendra Kumar, the panel's chairman, said Dr Wakefield had "brought the medical profession into disrepute" and his behaviour constituted "multiple separate instances of serious professional misconduct". In total, he was found guilty of more than 30 charges. Dr Kumar also explained the reasoning for striking Dr Wakefield off. "The panel concluded that it is the only sanction that is appropriate to protect patients and is in the wider public interest, including the maintenance of public trust and confidence in the profession, and is proportionate to the serious and wide-ranging findings made against him".

Dr Wakefield has consistently claimed the allegations against him were "unfounded and unjust". As the GMC announced its sanctions, Dr Wakefield said: "Efforts to discredit and silence me through the GMC process have provided a screen to shield the government from exposure on the MMR vaccine scandal". Two of his former colleagues at the Royal Free were also ruled to have broken guidelines. Professor John Walker-Smith and Professor Simon Murch both helped Dr Wakefield carry out the research. Professor Walker-Smith, who is 73 and has been retired for the past 10 years, was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and struck off the register. Professor Murch was found not guilty of serious professional misconduct despite there not being ethical approval for the research. In explaining this decision, Dr Kumar said he took into account the fact that Professor Murch stopped carrying out tests on children for the study because he did not think they were necessary. Professor Terence Stephenson, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said the scare over the vaccine had done "untold damage to the UK vaccination programme. "We cannot stress too strongly that all children and young people should have the MMR vaccine". The Department of Health reiterated this. A spokesman said: "The safety of MMR has been endorsed through numerous studies in many countries".

Anti-vaccination campaigners are preparing to release the sequel to VAXXED, the highly contentious film that has been used to spread the unfounded claim that vaccines cause autism and other developmental problems. VAXXED II: THE PEOPLE'S TRUTH will be premiered on 6 November 2019 in 50 venues across America. Its producers, led by Robert F Kennedy Jr, are keeping locations secret with tickets sold quietly in advance in the hope of foiling efforts to block the movie. From 7 November, the film will be taken on the road in the same VAXXED bus that was deployed in 2016 to disseminate the original film, traveling more than 50,000 miles from coast to coast of the USA. The movie was a powerful propaganda tool for the anti-vaccination movement, which has seen a surge in recent years within certain religious communities and among parents worried about scientifically unproven so-called "vaccine injuries"...

Publicity for the film carries the tagline: "The film they can't let you see". The slogan is a reference to moves to restrict access to VAXXED in the wake of public outcry against the spread of anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories. In March, Amazon decided to remove VAXXED from its streaming service following protest by the Democratic congressman Adam Schiff. Similar moves have been made by social media sites, although NBC News last month found that money was still being raised for the VAXXED bus through crowdfunding on Facebook. When the original VAXXED movie was released in 2016 it become the center of a public firestorm after Robert De Niro booked it for his Tribeca film festival, then pulled it following objections from doctors and scientists. The film's producers claim the ensuing furore was the best thing that ever happened to the anti-vaccination movement as it drew attention to the cause and attracted hundreds of people to the VAXXED bus....

Robert F Kennedy Jr, who is an executive producer of VAXXED 2, said the aim of the film was to give "vaccine-injured" individuals and their families a voice. "Their stories are muzzled by the media, and the film in many ways is an effort to allow those families a chance to speak", he said in an interview with the Guardian. Kennedy is a son of Robert F Kennedy, the Democratic leader who was assassinated in 1968, and nephew of John F Kennedy. An acclaimed environmentalist who pioneered campaigns to clean up rivers, Kennedy has in recent years channeled his energies through his organization CHILDREN'S HEALTH DEFENSE into the anti-vaccination movement. "I'm not anti-vax", he insisted. "I am somebody who is skeptical of government and pharma, but I'm not anti-vax". Kennedy cited his father, a legendary figure among Democrats, as rationale for his hostility towards vaccines. "My dad told me when I was a little kid, people in power lie and if you want to live in a democracy you have to treat every government pronouncement with skepticism", he said. Kennedy described himself as being devoted to scientific truth. Yet many of the claims he makes in VAXXED II and repeated to the Guardian have been thoroughly disproved over many years. His main allegation that vaccines cause autism has been conclusively countered by 18 studies conducted in seven countries across three continents involving hundreds of thousands of children.

The other character who appears prominently in VAXXED II is Andrew Wakefield, the disgraced British former physician who was the first to generate public doubts about MMR. In 1998 Wakefield published a paper in the LANCET based on the histories of a mere eight children that put fear into the hearts of many parents by suggesting a possible link between MMR and autism. The ripple effect of Wakefield's study was a dramatic slump in vaccine uptake in the UK and USA. In 2010 the UK's General Medical Council stripped Wakefield of his license to practice as a doctor on grounds of "dishonesty" in his vaccine work as well as multiple ethical breaches in the way he enlisted children to the study. Wakefield's LANCET article was retracted a few months later. Despite having been shunned by the British medical world, Wakefield has rebuilt his life in America as a celebrity figure revered by vaccine skeptics. He directed the first VAXXED film and appears in VAXXED II as an authority on the spurious science of "vaccine injuries". In the movie, Wakefield presents himself as uncowed and unashamed, David standing up to the Goliath of big pharma. "It can change and it will change, and we will win this battle", he says. He argues for a return to the days of herd immunity, in which almost all children got measles by the age of 15. "Herd immunity worked extremely well -- exposure to measles protected you", Wakefield says.

I was a physician. I qualified in 1981. I went on to practice as a surgeon with a specific interest in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. I then became an academic running a team of 19 people researching Inflammatory Bowel Disease and published over the period of 10 years in the order of 130 and 140 scientific publications on that particular subject. So in May the 17th 1995 -- and the date's emblazoned in my mind -- a mother called me and said, "My child, who's developing perfectly normally, they had an MMR vaccine and they regressed into Autism". And I said, "I'm a gastroenterologist, how can I help you"? and they said, "My child has terrible gastrointestinal problems and no one will take them seriously". And the story was so compelling, and this mother was so articulate, described it so clearly and said, "Dr Wakefield, there are many many parents in my same position with children in exactly the same condition as mine". And so we took it very seriously. So that was the beginning of a fascinating journey.

The link between the syndrome we were seeing and MMR vaccine came from the parental story -- the parents saying, "I wasn't anti-vaccine. I took my child to be vaccinated with MMR on time". It was given in isolation at the time in the UK so it was easy for them to pinpoint the MMR as what they believed to be the cause. And from that point forward their child developed a very high fever, seizures, prolonged sleep beyond which they woke up and they were never the same again. They lost speech and language interaction with their siblings and became profoundly unwell. So the way in which human disease syndromes are described -- whether it's Autism or Crohns disease or Aspergers -- is you have a collection of a few, a handful of patients -- sometimes no more than 4, sometimes as many as 15 -- where the presentation is so similar, the findings in the clinic are so similar -- that these merit publication in their own right. And that's called a Case Series and that is the way in which human disease syndromes are first described. And what that leads to are subsequent studies which then test hypotheses of causation. Was the parents story right -- was it that the child did regress in the face of MMR -- and was MMR the cause of the problem? So you can ask the question, "Well not every child who gets MMR develops Autism"? So what is the risk. Why these children and not those children? And one of our hypotheses was age of exposure. The younger you get the vaccine the greater the risk. And the reason for putting that forward is that we know with infections like Measles the younger you get Measles the greater the risk of a serious outcome. So if you get Measles under age one the risk of serious disease, following these Measles, is much greater than if you get it over age one.

Now by that stage, as a researcher, I had looked in great detail at the safety studies of MMR. I became very, very concerned that those studies were totally inadequate. Now this is not just my opinion because subsequently, what is called the Cochrane review -- which is one of the gold standard reviews of the medical literature -- has come forward and said the same thing. And their words were that these safety studies --- the pre-licensing safety studies of MMR vaccine -- were largely inadequate, particularly compared with the single vaccines. In other words the safety studies of the single vaccines were better. For example, if I went to the Food and Drug Administration and I had 3 antihypertensive drugs; 3 blood pressure drugs; and I said I've got these 3 drugs; I've got a license for each one individually but I want to put them together in the same tablet. Can I just put the 3 licenses in a folder and hand it to you and get a license for the combined drug, they would throw me out the door quite rightly. And they would say, "Come back when you have done a comparative study of every drug in combination with the other and compared them with the single drug for side effects for adverse reactions". That should have been done with the MMR vaccine and it was not. There were many assumptions made about the safety of this vaccine and I believe that children are now paying the price for those assumptions.

The LANCET study itself arose out of seeing many of these children with the same presentation -- normal development regression, an Autism spectrum, diagnosis gastrointestinal symptoms and bowel inflammation. So it was putting that story together in one package and saying, "Here are the first 12 children that we've seen. This is what we find. This is remarkable. It's consistent and it suggests the emergence of a new human disease syndrome". The parents report the regression occurred after MMR vaccine. In many cases that is now up for testing as a hypothesis. And and subsequent studies should be done to actually elucidate whether that is true or not. So that was published as a Case Series in THE LANCET in 1998. In February of that year a press briefing was held at the request of the Dean of the medical school and those findings were explained.

So in the UK there was then litigation by children against the manufacturers of the drug and I became involved in that litigation. And patients within the LANCET study also became involved once they got their diagnosis and they were convinced that this is what happened. Then they joined the litigation. It was alleged that the study was done for the purpose of litigation -- indeed that it was funded by lawyers for litigation. That is absolutely untrue. It simply was not. So I agreed to be a medical expert. And I feel obliged to act as a medical expert on their behalf because there were any number of doctors lining up on the other side to be paid as experts to act on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry. One of the allegations against me is that I had acted on behalf of lawyers -- I was being paid by lawyers -- to do the LANCET study. In fact I was being paid by a government funded compensation program to act as a medical expert. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the LANCET study which was paid for by the National Health Service. The payment from the legal aid board was not to me. Initially it was to the medical school to conduct a study to look for evidence of Measles virus in the diseased intestine of these children. That is what it specifically did. This was known to the editor of the LANCET nearly a year before the paper was published. He was sent documents from the lawyer saying, "We are working with Dr Andy Wakefield on this issue". He knew -- or should have known -- but conveniently he forgot that fact when he came to testify before the General Medical Council under oath. And it was only subsequently that it was disclosed that he knew all along.

When you had this threat of litigation then they came down very, very hard. What happened was that a journalist by the name of Brian Deer, a freelance journalist working on behalf of News International owned by Rupert Murdoch, came after me and contrived a story of fairy tales -- so fanciful -- of this evil doctor living in this mansion and wreaking havoc upon the children of the world in an attempt to profit and to make himself a legend in the history of Medicine. It took my life story and rewrote it. And it was a deliberate strategy -- a public relations strategy -- to say "We discredit this man; we isolate him from his colleagues; we destroy his career. And then we say to other physicians -- who might dare to get involved -- this is what will happen to you. And it's very, very sad because good doctors, honest doctors said, "Andy I know this is right, I know it's right". And they wrote it was right -- internal communications confirm their beliefs that it was right. But when it came to doing the right thing by these children -- when it was not gonna be good for their careers -- they stepped back. So it had the desired effect. Do I feel that I was framed by the pharmaceutical industry? Yes, I think about why it was me in particular -- I mean there were 13 authors on that study, many of them the most eminent people in their field.

They went after me because I joined in the litigation as an expert against the manufacturers. And I wrote to my colleagues that I can no longer support the continued use of this vaccine MMR. I will continue to vigorously support the use of the single vaccines -- the single Measles, Mumps, Rubella -- but cannot support the use of the triple vaccine. And I think it's because I put myself in that outspoken position that then they came after me in particular. Another allegation is that I was in my mountain lair -- secretly making this single vaccine which was a competitor to MMR; would put MMR out of the market, discredit it, and then bring my own vaccine onto the market and clean up. That was the idea from Brian Deer. What we had at the time was a patent -- the medical school had the patent not me -- and it was a patent on a thing called Transfer Factor. It's a naturally-occurring nutritional supplement that occurs in breast milk, for example, that boosts the immune response. Whether it worked or not is another question. That's what we sought to try and find out. But it boosts the immune response to an infection like Measles. This could not prevent children from getting measles, so it didn't act like MMR at all. What it did was to help them clear the virus once they became infected. It could never have competed with MMR vaccine -- never, because it did not work in the right way. And this was explained in great detail to Brian Deer and he completely ignored it. It remained that it was a competitive MMR and I was simply trying to clean up financially and put this onto the market.

Brian Deer's association with the vaccine manufacturer SmithKline Beecham, who went on to become GlaxoSmithKline, was a very close one, a very intimate relationship. He'd originally been a critic of their drug AZT but had since been given exclusive rights to some of their adverse drug reaction data in some exchange, some deal that had gone on between them. And beyond that point I believe he became their kind of attack dog. How could a single journalist achieve what Brian Deer achieved so effectively? It was the will of the government and it was the will of the pharmaceutical industry and it was the will of the media. At that time James Murdoch, son of Rupert Murdoch and part of News International, was on the board of GlaxoSmithKline as a non-executive director. And his job on the board of that vaccine manufacturer was to protect that industry's reputation in the media. So there was this very incestuous cabal involving government, media and the industry; that all wanted this outcome; said they were gonna get it. And against them there was me. Now you accuse the researcher of fraud in 30 seconds and it takes a lifetime to turn that around. And they know how vulnerable doctors are -- how the fraud allegations were completely false -- but you don't have to take my word for thia. There's now been a thorough investigation and examination of the original data used in THE LANCET paper by an ex senior scientist from the Environmental Protection Agency, Dr David Lewis. I never met him before he took all of the original files and analyzed them and showed categorically and definitively that I had not had been involved in any fraud at all. But the fraud had taken place on the part of Brian Deer and the British Medical Journal. They had fraudulently misrepresented our work at the Royal Free in order to achieve the effect that was ultimately achieved. And that is the perception worldwide -- that this study was a fake; it was false; it was made up and there is no substance to it.

The blood samples at my son's birthday party were in order to study the children with Autism. We were examining their blood samples -- we needed blood samples from healthy children. And of course in hospital you don't see healthy children. You see children who are sick. And so my wife suggested that we have a birthday party coming up. And maybe we can get some blood from our children and children at the birthday party. And I thought that was a reasonable idea. It was done with fully informed children and parental consent and fully informed it was entirely ethical. It was no worse, for example, than going to CVS and having a shot. In fact probably substantially better. It was done by a highly experienced general practitioner, not by me, and there were no problems at all. The only problem was that it did not have an approval from the hospital ethics committee. That does not make it unethical. It was done, as I say, with fully informed child and parental consent. So that's the story. Do I regret it? Yes, but not because it was unethical -- it wasn't -- but because it gave the General Medical Council a concrete reason for then taking away my license. It was a mistake and if I did it again I would do so with the appropriate ethical approval. And so therefore it's something I regret. But was it at any stage unethical? No.

THE LANCET paper was withdrawn on the basis of two allegations that the children were sequentially investigated. In other words these are children who came in one after another. And what that means is you're not saying we took just the children we wanted because they told us the story we wanted to hear and we left out the others. You take them sequentially so you include all the children -- and it avoids bias and that is the correct way to do it. The other reason is that it was claimed by Brian Deer and subsequently the GMC, that there was no ethical approval in America investigational or institutional review board approval for the study itself. It was a clinical study. It didn't need ethical approval but the analysis of the biopsies from the intestine did and there was ethical approval. And that was in Deer's hands when he made the allegation and he deliberately withheld that information from the General Medical Council, It was an obstruction of justice.

The licensing board for doctors in the UK is called the General Medical Council and you are judged by your peers in medicine and some lay people as well At the GMC there were three defendants: Professor Walker-Smith who was at the time the world's leading pediatric gastroenterologist -- a very senior man with an impeccable record and unimpeachable career; one of his juniors, Dr Simon Murch and myself. All 3 of us were found guilty. Simon Murch did not lose his license but Walker-Smith and I lost our license. He was then funded to appeal in the English High Court. I did appeal but for financial reasons it was impossible for me to pursue that. And it was not a primary objective after that to restore my license. There were more important things to do. But Professor Walker-Smith did appeal and at that appeal -- the first time this case had ever come before a proper judiciary, a proper judge. Then the judge destroyed the general Medical Council's decision. He said effectively they were incompetent; they were not in a position to judge the evidence; that they made mistakes; they got the facts wrong; they misrepresented the evidence and, the worse of all, they were biased. They had made up their minds from the outset that we were guilty. And he completely overturned their decision and said, in effect, this must never happen again. Walker-Smith was completely reinstated and all charges against him utterly dismissed. 90% of the charges against Walker-Smith were the same charges as those against me. The paper should have been reinstated and yet the LANCET editor refused to do that in order to protect his reputation and his job. So did that ever find its way into the newspapers? Briefly -- one newspaper, big story, terrible mention. You don't hear about that now. All you hear about is that we were discredited, had our licenses removed, the paper was retracted. But the real story has yet to be told.

Well it's very interesting because at the time I made a recommendation that parents should opt for the use of the single vaccine to protect their children against these infections. They should have the option of how to do it. And at that time in the UK and the US the single vaccines were available so the parents could choose: "I'm not happy about MMR but I want to vaccinate my child so I will opt for the single vaccines". And they protect perfectly well, for example, against Measles. So that option was available to them. I would not have made that recommendation if that were not the case. And so in the UK six months later the government withdrew the importation license for the single vaccines. In the USA some years later Merck unilaterally stopped the production of the single vaccines. I mean they make them individually to put them together. But they stopped making them available in the marketplace so that it was MMR or nothing -- our way or the highway. And that deprived parents of the choice. They were still concerned about MMR so they didn't vaccinate. Measles then came back. It was entirely their fault. And as I say in the movie, I asked a senior member of the Department of Health, "Why would you do that if you want to protect children against serious infectious disease? Why would you take away an option of how parents might do that"? She said because if we allow parents the choice then it will destroy our MMR program. In other words the concern was for the protection of the program and not the children. And that was a disastrous mistake. Measles came back -- it was entirely their responsibility. But of course it was blamed on me and when they quote the fall in MMR uptake in the UK, what they do not quote is the reciprocal increase in the use of the single vaccines before it was withdrawn.

Well I won't pretend that this has been easy at all. But the medical imperative is utterly compelling and whenever I get to feel a little bit sorry for myself, because of the GMC or something someone has said in the media, then I only need to look at the next child with Autism to realize that actually I don't have a problem. I have four healthy children, a wonderful family. There's no Autism and my family. I look at the next child with Autism and I think that child has a problem. I don't have a problem so get over yourself. Get on with it and get the job done.

PHARMA PITCHES THALIDOMIDE FOR COVID

JFK DOC SAVED BABIES FROM THALIDOMIDE

COVID MASK-VAX OF THE BEAST

OWED TO THE UNBORN

WHERE HAVE ALL OUR CHILDREN GONE?

BIG BROTHER BIO-CHEM WARFARE

JFK ASSASSINATION PUZZLE PIECES & RFK ASSASSINATION PUZZLE PIECES

JFK TRUTHS & UNTRUTHS

14.Scientific Experimentation & 16.Ministry of Truth (Lies) & 25.Prolefeed