[Column written by Murray Rothbard for the New Libertarian 4, no. 7 (April-June 1980): 13–15.]
The Iran/Afghanistan crises have been a god-send to Jimmy Carter. From being lowest in the polls of any President in American history, Carter has vaulted to a probable shoo-in for reelection. Iran helped; but it was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that really did it. For Iran is a complex situation, and the American masses don’t like complexity. For all that we can say about the evil Ayatollah (and he sure looks evil, doesn’t he, which of course helps), he is certainly no Commie, and Americans are confused about getting set to nuke people who are not Commies. Beset and befuddled about Iran, President Carter leaped to his feet on Afghanistan. He could now return to the good old Red-baiting pieties of the Cold War: the evil Russians—now there’s something that Americans have been trained to understand! And it worked like magic, the media were easily sucked in, and even our West European allies. Even the UN became an American fief once more, the Muslim countries joining in condemnation of the Russkies. Once again, the American people rallied around the siren call of nation-State patriotism and the Russian “threat,” and rallied behind Jimmy Carter for the glorious cause of “national honor,” global crusading, the “free” world, and a second Carter term.
Pressured by the Pentagon, the war hawk wing of the Rockefeller-Trilateralists headed by Dr. Zibigniew (“Strangelove”) Brzezinski, and the Jackson-Moynihan Social Democrat wing of his party, Carter had already gone a long way to rupture detente with the Soviets: increasing military spending, foot-dragging on SALT II [Strategic Arms Limitation Talks], and especially, placing nuclear weapons in Western Europe. But now the blame for the break could all be placed on the Russians. And the Russian intervention could then be used as a marvelous alibi for scuttling SALT altogether, building a rapid deployment force for a quick strike anywhere, and vast increases in military.
Not only that: the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan enabled Carter to find a beautiful solution to the basic, long-run Iranian problem. That long-run problem has nothing to do with the hostages. It is: now that our client and ally, the dictator, mass-torturer, and close friend of the Rockefeller world interests, the Shah of Iran, is gone, how can the U.S. move in? The CIA, which Carter and the Congress will now be happy to “unleash” again, with troublesome problems of civil liberties now forgotten, will of course try a replay of their 1953 coup, which put the Shah back in after a rebellion had kicked him out. But this ploy may not work a second time, now that everyone is alert to this option. How can the U.S. move in against the opposition of all Iran? Russia has given us the opportunity. Howling about how Afghanistan now poses a threat of Russian invasion of Iran (a howl based on no evidence whatever), Carter moved in to proclaim his extraordinarily dangerous Carter Doctrine of drawing a line around the Persian Gulf, any invasion of which would being U.S. military action, even unto nuclear weapons. And since it is absurd to think that non-nuclear U.S. military forces could lick Soviet troops near their territory, nuclear bombs are our only real weapon.
And here we see one of the key reasons that the United States, not the Soviet Union, is the main menace to the peace of the world and indeed to the very existence of the human race. Because, if the U.S. wishes to push its weight around across the globe, especially in land areas near Russia, nuclear bombs and missiles are our only weapon. Hence, it is the imperial U.S. that is continually brandishing the nuclear threat. It is no accident that Russia has consistently urged a no-first-use of nuclear weapons and the U.S has consistently refused.
No matter, furthermore, that nearly every country of the Persian Gulf, including of course Iran, has angrily rejected the U.S.’s transparent offer of American “protection” from “outside forces.” Even the foreign minister of conservative Kuwait declared that the country could defend itself very well without such “protection.” And Tass, the Soviet news agency, deftly noted that the only “outside force” in the Persian Gulf is the U.S. Navy!
And so, to an American frustrated by the Ayatollah, Carter could summon up intervention against Russia and, miraculously enough, in Iran itself, this time under the guise of defending the latter’s “freedom” against Russia. In that way, the “fanatical extremist” Muslims of Iran and Afghanistan could suddenly be transformed into “heroic freedom fighters” for Islam against godless Communism. And, above all, Jimmy Carter was able to use the incident to get away with a strong pledge for all-out—even unto nuclear—war, in defense of Rockefeller’s oil interests in the Persian Gulf. Are we all, once again, to kill and die, this time in a nuclear holocaust, on behalf of Standard Oil? Ever since Carter’s accession to the Presidency, his close ties with David Rockefeller and the Trilateral Commission have become well-known. Equally well-known is the Rockefeller-Kissinger role in pressuring Carter to admit the supposedly “dying” Shah (who still seems pretty perky) into the U.S. Yet where is the perception of the greatest Rockefeller coup of them all: the all-out pledge of unlimited war to defend their oil in the Persian Gulf?
And what of the Soviets, who must be bemused and befuddled by now, they whose intervention into Afghanistan triggered all this? Was the invasion of Afghanistan, as the U.S. has depicted, an arrogant preparation to a Soviet march into Iran, or even world conquest? Was it, as the U.S. Establishment claims, a new and frightening aspect of Soviet foreign policy?
The answer is No. First, and most trivially, the Soviet Union already borders on Iran, and a march from Afghanistan would have to be based from a country which has very poor transport facilities. Second, there is no indication whatever that Russia is interested in marching into Iran, and thereby inflaming the Iranian nation. Third, Soviet foreign policy, since the days of Lenin, has had one guiding star: protecting its borders by dominating the nations on its periphery. And this “domination” is largely concerned with seeing to it that no anti-Soviet nations are contiguous to Russia. Thus, while imperialist and deplorable, Soviet foreign policy is basically cautious and defensive; Russia has been invaded three times from Eastern Europe in this century, and therefore its concern with avoiding anti-Soviet governments there is understandable. In fact, Soviet foreign policy is squarely in the tradition of Czarist policy before it, except that the Soviets are considerably less imperialist, since the Czars would push out on their borders until meeting resistance. The Soviets are concerned merely with keeping the domination they have.
What, then, of Afghanistan? Afghanistan has, for centuries, been the pawn and warring ground of rival imperialisms. Before the eighteenth century, the Afghans were a number of tribes dominated by Iran and by India. In the mid-eighteenth century, the tribes were shakily united into a kingdom. In the early nineteenth century, Napoleon and the British both fished among the Afghans; Napoleon tried to launch an attack on British India, and the British countered by urging Iran to carve a chunk out of Afghanistan. But, in the meanwhile, Czarist Russia was moving southward, and, by 1828, was dominating the government in Iran. When Iran, on Russia’s prompting, attacked Afghanistan, the British, now fearing Russian designs on India, moved in to bolster the Afghans and forced the Persians to withdraw.
From then on, British imperialism tried to dominate Afghanistan. In 1838, the British sent an Anglo-Indian army of 30,000 to invade Afghanistan. The invasion united the Afghans against the hated British, and in November 1841, the oppressed Afghans rose up in Kabul, assassinated the British puppet Shah Shoja, and massacred every Englishman they could find. The following year, the British were forced to withdraw from Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the Russian army, moving southward in Asia, was defeated by the Khanate of Khiva. These simultaneous defeats of the two major imperialisms in the area postponed an Anglo-Russian confrontation in southeast Asia for decades, with the theater of war being shifted to the Ottoman Empire and the Crimea.
By the late 1860s and early 1870s, the Russians, the Crimean War ended, were ready to resume their advance against the various independent Muslim states in southwest Asia. The Russians conquered the Kokand, Khiva, and the Turkomans. Finally, in 1877, the Russians signed a treaty with Shir Ali, the ruler of Afghanistan: Russia would supply the Afghans with technical assistance and military instructors, indeed with an army of 30,000 men. The British, enraged, and determined to exclude Russian influence from Afghanistan, invaded that country in 1878, in the Second Anglo-Afghan War. This time, the British triumphed, Shir Ali was deposed, and his successors agreed, in return for full domestic control, to British domination of Afghanistan’s foreign relations.
The Russians, in response, moved southward, mopped up the Turkomans, and attacked the Penjdeh oasis in 1885, a disputed border zone with the Afghans. Liberal British Prime Minister Gladstone was in the process of shifting away from his old non-interventionist foreign policy, and his government succumbed to war hysteria. Apparently, the Carter case is not the first time that a Western government has been moved to fulminations over Afghanistan. Peace, however, was preserved, and the British and Russians signed a protocol in September, defining the northern Afghan border, and leaving Afghanistan under British domination. A few years later, the British drew the existing frontier between Afghanistan and India—a frontier which plagues the region to this day. For the line was drawn so far westward as to include a large number of Afghans (Pushtus) in what is now Pakistan.
The new Amir (King) of Afghanistan, Habibullah, who had come to the throne in 1901, grew restive, and refused the annual British subsidy. He also proposed to construct a railway which prompted the British, in 1905, to forbid any such railway which would, they warned, be considered an “act of aggression” against India.
In 1907, as part of a general agreement between the two giants over their conflicts in Central Asia, Russia and England agreed that Russia would recognize Afghanistan to be under British domination; the British, for their part, agreed not to occupy the country unless the Amir failed to fulfill his treaty commitments, that is: accept British pay, and take orders from Britain in foreign affairs. (There would, in that case, of course be no point for Britain to bother with outright occupation.) Part of those orders were to refrain from building any railroads, which the British would construe as a per se threat to their previous imperial jewel, India.
The British idyll was disturbed, as was so much of the British Empire, by World War I. Habibullah began to slip away from British control. Turkey, kingpin of the Muslim world, was at war against Britain, and Habibullah flirted with the Turkish-German side. He kept the country neutral, however. In 1919, after the assassination of Habibullah, the new Amir Amanullah declared his country’s independence from British imperialism, and, inspired by the Russian Bolshevik outcry against Western imperialism, Ammanullah rashly called for a holy war against the British. Attaching India, he was quickly defeated, but the British, no longer possessed of their old flair, made peace with Amanullah. The British removed their subsidy and their domination, and, at the Treaty of Mussourie in 1922, formally confirmed the independence of Afghanistan in both domestic and foreign affairs.
From the early 1920s on, the Amirs of Afghanistan pursued a foreign policy of neutrality and close collaboration with the Soviet Union. Assured of the friendly neutrality of this country on its border, the Soviets had no desire to press further.
To sum up the story thus far: Afghanistan, long a battleground for rival imperialisms from Britain and Russia (and partially from Iran), fell under the domination of Britain by the end of the nineteenth century. After World War I, however, the king of Afghanistan voluntarily took the country into the Soviet orbit. The Soviets, pursuing a policy of trying to gain and preserve friendly border states, did no more; there was no attempt to Communize the country or to invade it.
After World War II, Afghanistan grew worried about the increasing arms aid the U.S. was giving its ancient enemy Pakistan, especially since Pakistan was using these weapons to attack Afghanistan in their border conflict and to fasten its domination over the Pushtu tribesmen in the northwest. In 1956, Afghanistan requested military aid from the U.S. to balance our aid to Pakistan. The U.S. told Afghanistan it would only give aid if Afghanistan joined the U.S.-dominated Baghdad Pact, and even then it refused to guarantee Afghanistan against any Soviet attack. Rebuffed, Afghanistan, in the same year, cemented a formal military and economic alliance with the Soviet Union, obtaining large-scale aid and support.
So: since 1919, Afghanistan has been friendly to the Soviet Union. And since 1956, it has had close military and economic ties; in effect, it has been a client kingdom of Soviet Russia. All this was done to the tune of no hysterical outcries from the United States or from the global anti-Communist crowd.
While Afghanistan was a client state in military and foreign affairs, the Soviet, happy with a friendly state on their borders, showed no interest in helping Afghan Communists or in bringing Marxism to that country. Peace reigned until the fateful 1973, when the Amir was overthrown in a coup by Prince Daud, who substituted a republic for the old monarchy. (The old King still resides in sunny exile in an Italian resort.) Daud continued the Amir’s policy until 1977, when he was bought out by the Shah of Iran, pursuing his policy of being America’s satrap and surrogate imperialist in southwest Asia. Pursuant to coming under the Shah’s payroll, Daud gave in to the Shah’s pressure on border and trade issues, and permitted the infamous SAVAK, the Shah’s secret policy, to operate within his country.
The Soviets were understandably distraught; not only had the border country of Afghanistan been under their wing since 1919, but the Soviets had poured the huge sum of $1.3 billion of aid into Afghanistan from 1954 to 1976. And now the country was slipping into a pro-West, pro-Shah foreign policy. In April 1978, under the friendly stimulus of the Soviets, Daud was overthrown, and a Marxist regime, headed by President Mohammed Nur Taraki was installed.
So—if Afghanistan had pro-Soviet kings from 1919 to the late 1970s, since April 1978 it has had a Communist-dominated regime to boot. Still, no howls of frenzy from the United States. The Communists proceeded to do what Communists are supposed to do: namely, nationalize the peasantry, who constitute the overwhelming majority (about 78%) of the Afghan population; conjoined to that was a partial crackdown on the Islamic religion. The Afghans, as we all know by now, are devout Muslims, and, as peasants, they hate and detest land nationalization. Hence, they began to take to the hills to wage guerrilla war against the Marxist regime. Very soon, the guerrillas seized control of the entire countryside, indeed of the entire country except the capital, Kabul, and four other urban cities.
Now, as everyone should know by now, a Commie is not always a Commie; that is, not all Communists are the same. There are different and warring groups of Afghan Communists, and the Taraki regime was a coalition among them. It soon became clear to both Taraki and the Russians that their main problem was Prime Minister Hafizullah Amin, head of another group of Communists. Hafizullah Amin was in a profound sense, too Commie for the Russians. His insistence on rapid nationalization, his brutal oppression and mass torture of the peasantry, had been the main factor in galvanizing the guerrillas and leading to guerrilla conquests. Amin, they decided, had to go.
In September, 1979, Taraki had his confrontation with Amin; the plan was for Taraki to shoot and kill Amin. But instead, oops, the opposite happened, and the hated Amin was now in total control. He cracked down even more brutally on the peasantry, and it soon looked as if the guerrillas would conquer the entire country. The Communist Afghan army had had it.
What do do? The Russians were in despair. Once again, their Afghan ally was slipping down the tubes to become an anti-Soviet regime made up of Muslim guerrillas. And so, in early December, Russia sent to Kabul one of its top police officials: Lieutenant General Viktor S. Paputin, First Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs. Paputin’s mission: to get rid of the Amin problem, either by persuading him to resign, or at the least to invite Russian troops to enter in force—far beyond the 5,000 Soviet advisers then assisting the Afghan army—to save the regime from the guerrillas. No one knows precisely what happened to General Paputin. We do know that he failed dismally, and that he died shortly thereafter. Either Amin killed the General, or else he returned to Russia and committed suicide in disgrace; at any rate, the Paputin card was finished, and the Russians arrived at what they considered their final recourse: a military invasion of Afghanistan, and the swift liquidation of the troublesome Amin. Babrak Karmal, leader of the most pro-Soviet group of Afghan Communists, was trotted out from Russia to become puppet head of Afghanistan.
It should be clear, from this lengthy account, that the Soviet military invasion was in no sense an arrogant drive for the conquest of all of southwest Asia. It was an act, not of strength, but of profound weakness. It was an admission that Russia could no longer control Afghanistan indirectly through native Communists: that it could only be done by a massive Soviet occupation army.
Since then, things have gone from bad to worse for the Soviets. First, the U.S. was able to mobilize a hypocritical world outburst of righteousness and to fulminate against the very kind of interference in a bordering country that the United States itself had committed in Korea and Vietnam half the globe away. But not only that: the occupation has gone very badly, as the Russians themselves should have learned from guerrilla theory. Kabul has not been able to govern at all; and the guerrillas are still dominant, fomenting general strikes in Kabul itself, despite the presence of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers. It is no wonder that the Russians are looking for some face-saving device to permit them to get the blazes out of Afghanistan. Afghanistan presents us with no new Russian “threat;” the threat to peace comes, as it has so often, from the United States.
An important and long-overdue debate has occurred between Iraq-raping arch-neocon Bill Kristol and the tireless libertarian war critic Scott Horton on the subject of US interventionism, and you should definitely drop whatever you’re doing and watch it immediately. The resolution up for debate was “A willingness to intervene, and to seek regime change, is key to an American foreign policy that benefits America,” with Kristol obviously arguing in the affirmative and Horton in the negative.
Questions from the moderator (where things really heat up) starts here.
Q&A from the audience (in my opinion is the best part) begins here.
The winner of the debate will be obvious to anyone watching. Horton plowed through criticisms of the way US foreign policy is constantly “creating its own disasters it must then attempt to solve” from his encyclopedic knowledge of interventionist bloodbaths and their undeniable repercussions while Kristol appeared frequently flustered, passed on multiple rebuttals, and got called on blatantly false claims. Horton rattled off nations, dates and death tolls in rapid succession and repeatedly referenced Kristol’s own role in imperialist bloodshed, while Kristol relied almost entirely on insubstantial assertions to defend his position that “we can be at once a republic and a liberal empire” and empty dismissal of Horton’s points about the destructive nature of various US foreign interventions.
In the end a deflated-looking Kristol gave closing remarks which amounted to little more than whining that Horton’s position doesn’t assume war hawks like himself are acting “in good faith”, while Horton’s closing statement just continued his blistering assault.
By the end of it you almost feel bad for old Bill.
The audience unsurprisingly sided overwhelmingly with Horton by a significantly greater margin at the end of the debate than the beginning. The only unanswered question when all was said and done was, how the hell did Kristol get it in his head that entering this debate was a good idea?
One can only assume hubris. Hubris arising from a life in an elitist echo chamber where his warped views are seldom challenged, and continual marination in the kind of unearned validation that only Beltway swamp monsters ever receive.
So watch and enjoy, folks. Participating in this kind of humiliating debate is not a mistake that any high-profile neocon is likely to repeat anytime soon.
In a Highwire exclusive, Deborah Conrad, a physician’s assistant (PA), blows the whistle on COVID jab injuries, and the fact that these injuries, by and large, are not being reported.
According to Conrad, shortly after the mass vaccination campaign began, she started seeing a surprising number of hospital patients who had recently received a COVID shot and were now testing positive for COVID-19.
In particular, patients were coming in with pneumonia, and this was happening even in the middle of the summer. It’s become so common, Conrad refers to 2021 as “the year of pneumonia.” Sepsis cases have also increased.
After the COVID jab rollout, she also noticed a marked increase in heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, gastrointestinal complaints and bleeds, appendicitis, pancreatitis and recurrent cancers. All of these were “noticeably increased,” she says, and “everybody seemed to notice it.”
Tomorrow, I will publish yet another bombshell video — a documentary called “Vaccine Secrets: COVID Crisis.” It’s the first episode of “The False Narrative Takedown Series,” produced by Steve Kirsch, executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund. You won’t want to miss that one, as it complements and supports everything Conrad shared in this interview.
Most Health Care Workers Know Nothing about VAERS
Conrad, who has worked as a PA for 17 years, admits she knew nothing about the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) prior to the COVID vaccination campaign. This is the case with most health care providers. None of them were ever educated on how to identify potential vaccine injuries, how to report them, or that they have a legal requirement to report all emergency use vaccine injuries.
When it comes to conventional vaccines, reporting to VAERS is voluntary. Not so with emergency use vaccines, however. Vaccine injuries caused by a vaccine under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) MUST be reported to VAERS by law. However, as noted by Conrad, there’s been absolutely no training on how to do so.
She was shocked to realize health care providers are actually required by law to report suspected EUA vaccine injuries, as none of the hospital staff had been instructed to do so. But on page 12 of Pfizer’s “Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccine,” it states that:1
“The vaccination provider is responsible for mandatory reporting of the following to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS):
•vaccine administration errors whether or not associated with an adverse event,
•serious adverse events (irrespective of attribution to vaccination),
•cases of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS) in adults and children, and
•cases of COVID-19 that result in hospitalization or death.
Complete and submit reports to VAERS online at vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html. For further assistance with reporting to VAERS call 1-800-822-7967. The reports should include the words ‘Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine EUA’ in the description section of the report.”
Doctors Have a Public Health Duty to Report Side Effects
In addition to a lack of education about VAERS, one of the reasons why so few physicians report suspected vaccine injuries is because there are no penalties for failing to fulfill your legal responsibilities. It’s essentially not enforced.
It’s worth noting that it is not the doctor’s job to decide whether an injury is caused by a vaccine or not. The language in VAERS is very clear on this. They are simply to report any adverse health condition that occurs after a vaccination has been given.
Over time, as reports accumulate, the FDA and CDC can then start to see potential associations, and if a particular condition occurs at high frequency after a particular vaccine is given, the link would then, theoretically at least, be investigated further. In short, VAERS function is to signal potential side effects that weren’t known before.
Naturally, collecting data on side effects is particularly crucial when dealing with a brand-new, never previously used medical product such as these mRNA and DNA-based COVID injections.
Every health care worker in the nation really ought to be on the lookout for potential side effects, and diligently fulfill their public health duty to report any and all health effects that occur within a month or two, at minimum, after the injections. We are, after all, in a mass experiment, and without rigorous data collection, how can we possibly understand what these injections are doing?
VAERS Is a Crucial Tool to Ensure Vaccine Safety
As soon as Conrad became aware of her responsibility to report side effects, she started filing reports. But there were so many that “quickly, that became a full-time job,” she says. Within a month, she’d already reported 50 suspected vaccine injuries.
Fact checkers typically dismiss VAERS data as “unreliable” because anyone can file a report. The fact that a patient experienced a problem after vaccination also does not mean that the vaccine was the cause. Such debunking attempts do not hold water, however.
First of all, filing a VAERS report is not a quick and easy task. It’s very time consuming and requires detailed data on blood work, symptoms, previous medical history, vaccine lot numbers and much more. What’s more, there’s no save feature, so you cannot walk away from it midstream, or the system will log you out and you have to start all over again.
So, to say VAERS is not optimized for ease of use and compliance is a profoundly serious understatement. Conrad, and many other doctors, have stated that the system will often also fail to authenticate once you hit “submit,” and erase the whole report. It’s almost like it’s was intentionally designed to discourage reporting.
There’s also no incentive to spend your days filing false reports, as there are penalties for doing so. This is in stark contrast to not filing a report, which carries no penalty. What’s more, while a patient or parent can file a report, most reports are done by medical professionals, and they’re not going to waste their time filing false reports.
Then there’s the actual purpose of VAERS, which as mentioned is to signal potential problems. It’s true any single report cannot be taken as proof that the vaccine caused a problem, but when you have thousands or tens of thousands of reports of a given effect, that’s a SIGNAL that there might be a link. This is clearly expressed on the FDA’s website:2
“The purpose of VAERS is to detect possible signals of adverse events associated with vaccines. VAERS collects and analyzes information from reports of adverse events (possible side effects) that occur after the administration of U.S. licensed vaccines.”
Avoiding Vaccine Hesitancy Deemed More Important Than Safety
Once Conrad started getting overwhelmed by the task of filing reports, she asked the hospital administration for help. She wanted the administration to educate the staff so that everyone could all pitch in and “do the right thing” by identifying injuries and filing reports.
Instead of getting the assistance she expected, she ran into a brick wall of resistance. The vaccination push was in full swing, and no one was willing to raise questions about vaccine safety, as it might promote vaccine hesitancy. Remarkably, promoting the idea that the shots are perfectly safe — even if untrue — was deemed more important than making sure patients were not being harmed by the millions.
Conrad then called her hospital’s president to ask why side effects were not routinely reported to VAERS as required by law. The president replied he believes “the position the system has taken is that each provider has the responsibility to report on their own patient.”
But how can they do that if they’re not educated about what they’re supposed to be reporting? Conrad asked. He told her “providers should educate themselves when they’re dealing with patients related to COVID vaccinations.”
After that, the risk management team told her she was no longer allowed to file reports on behalf of other doctors. She could only file reports for her own patients. She also received a written warning, saying she must support the hospital’s approach to the vaccine, per CDC and Department of Health guidance.
Historically, Vaccine Injuries Are Routinely Underreported
As explained by Conrad, as adult-care providers, they rarely deal with vaccinations, as adults receive very few vaccines. Pediatricians are typically the ones who administer vaccines, and they give them to babies and young children. Hence pediatricians may be more familiar with VAERS.
However, even among pediatricians, knowledge and use of VAERS is limited, and this has been known for over a decade. As noted in the so-called “Lazarus Report,” formally titled “Electronic Support for Public Health — Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System,” published in late 2010:3
“Preliminary data were collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals.
Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of vaccinations) were identified. This is an average of 890 possible events, an average of 1.3 events per clinician, per month.
These data were presented at the 2009 AMIA conference. In addition, ESP: VAERS investigators participated on a panel to explore the perspective of clinicians, electronic health record (EHR) vendors, the pharmaceutical industry, and the FDA towards systems that use proactive, automated adverse event reporting.
Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of ‘problem’ drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed.
Barriers to reporting include a lack of clinician awareness, uncertainty about when and what to report, as well as the burdens of reporting: reporting is not part of clinicians’ usual workflow, takes time, and is duplicative.”
CDC’s New System Showed 1 in 10 Had Reactions
This report has an interesting backstory. In 2010, the CDC actually hired a company to automate VAERS. Any patient who received a vaccine within the Harvard Pilgrim HMO automatically had their medical records scanned for the next 30 days, such as diagnostic codes, lab tests and drug prescriptions.
Any health problem suggestive of an adverse event was then automatically uploaded into the VAERS database. Remarkably, preliminary data showed nearly 1 in 10 people suffered a reaction after vaccination, yet the official CDC mantra is that the risk for serious vaccine injury or death is 1 in 1 million.
Unfortunately, while the creation of VAERS in 1986 was an opportunity to get a firmer grasp of the number of potential vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths occurring after vaccinations given in the U.S., the CDC didn’t follow through, and the project fell by the wayside.
As noted by the authors, the plan to automate VAERS reporting didn’t happen because “the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation.”
Why did the CDC drop this project? Don’t they want to protect public health from potentially dangerous products? Did they think the truth might destroy the vaccine industry?
Surprising Rise in Cancer and Other Odd Conditions
As mentioned, Conrad saw a dramatic rise in several different health problems as the COVID jabs were rolled out. One of the most surprising problems has been a sudden rise in cancers among vaccinated patients whose cancer had gone into remission before the jab.
Bigtree points out he’s spoken with a number of oncologists who have made the same observation in their practices. These cancers tend to be very sudden in onset and highly aggressive, often leading to death.
She’s also seeing new cancers that appear “out of nowhere,” and rarer types of cancer, such as solid organ tumors that kill the patient before a biopsy can even be taken.
Blood clots and strokes have also skyrocketed, and these occur even in patients who are on maximum doses of anticoagulants. Odd and unusual neurological problems with seizures and tremors are also becoming more commonplace, as is pneumonia and sepsis.
Are We in a Pandemic of the Unvaccinated?
When asked if a majority of the patients in her hospital are unvaccinated — which is what we’re being told — she says no, quite the opposite. She’s been tracking the numbers for a couple of months, and as just one example, on one particular day in July, of the 35 patients admitted, 30 were fully vaccinated, and all of the seven patients in the intensive care unit were fully vaccinated.
This despite the fact that, at that time, the county vaccination rate was only between 40% and 45%. She points out that these vaccinated patients were not all COVID-19 patients, but were admitted for all sorts of health issues. Many vaccinated patients have also been readmitted several times since they got their shot.
While Conrad has done everything she can to protect public health up until now — having filed more than 120 VAERS reports so far — she won’t be fighting on the frontlines any longer. She’s being let go from her job at the end of September 2021 for refusing to get the COVID shot. After everything she’s seen, “I’m more afraid of the vaccine than I am of COVID,” she says.
The Likely Result of This Tyrannical Intervention
This is the ultimate irony. Conrad is clearly one of the most compassionate, high integrity and absolutely committed health professionals in that hospital and they are firing her for adhering to her constitutional rights. I believe this is precisely the behavior that will ultimately lead to the self-destruction of our society.
You simply can’t fire tens of millions of some of the brightest and most honest people in the country who adhere to personal freedom and liberty and not expect it to have devastating consequences. Who will be left to do the work? The majority of these people being terminated are highly trained professionals that can’t be easily replaced.
It is clear they don’t understand the results of these tyrannical interventions. It is beyond evident that we are in for some very rocky times with massive shortages as people are fired from their jobs. So, be prepared folks, and stock up as if you were expecting a hurricane and knew you’d have no access to outside help for three to six months. I hope this doesn’t happen, but everything is pointing to this outcome.
Vaccine-Injured Patients Want To Be Heard
The sad truth is, we’re in an epidemic of vaccine injuries, and injured patients are now routinely ignored by the very people who encouraged them to get the shot. To get an idea of what the risks actually are, check out some of the cases reported to nomoresilence.world4 and c19vaxreactions.com,5 two websites dedicated to giving a voice to those injured by COVID shots.
You can also browse through more than 246,000 comments left on a Facebook post by WXYZ-TV Channel 7.6,7 They asked people who had lost an unvaccinated loved one to COVID-19 to contact them for a story, but what they got was an avalanche of stories of vaccine injuries and deaths instead. Below is a sampling of comments posted on the site:
“How about doing a story about my uncle who was in fine shape until he got vaccinated. Or my boss’s uncle who was healthy and in his 50s, then died suddenly a week after getting vaccinated.”
“My sister-in-law’s father died of a stroke 48H after Moderna vax. He was active and healthy.”
“The shot murdered my friend three weeks after he got it.”
“I know 2 women who had strokes aright after their shot.”
“We lost an uncle to heart inflammation 2 days after he received the vaccine.”
“Lost a very dear man after his second dose of the vaccine and he said he regretted getting it and he advised me not to get it. How about reporting on those? He died of a brain aneurysm, and was a very healthy man.”
“My beautiful mother passed away recently, 23 days after having the first AstraZeneca shot (that I didn’t know she was getting). ‘Immunization’ was the ‘cause of death’ on her death certificate.”
“I now know more people injured by the vaccine than people who even had covid.”
“No, but I know of two people who died from Covid after being fully vaccinated.”
“My uncle passed away 3 months after his second shot. He was diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer, had surgery, was released to rehab and then died of a blood clot. Thanks Pfizer.”
“I know of two women who had miscarriages within 2 days of taking it.”
As noted by one commenter, “Doesn’t sound like you’re getting the story you need judging by the vast majority of these comments about vaccine losses and side effects. Since there is such an overwhelming outpouring of vaccine reactions, maybe do a story on that?”
