thelibertybeacon--2020-07-18--Judicial Watch Uncovers Explosive FBI Emails, Appearing To Reference A WH ‘Confidential Informant’

A top government watchdog group obtained 136 pages of never before publicized emails between former FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and one in particular appears to refer to a confidential informant inside the White House in 2017 , according to a press release from Judicial Watch .
Those emails , some of which are heavily redacted , reveal that “ Strzok , Page and top bureau officials in the days prior to and following President Donald Trump ’ s inauguration discussing a White House counterintelligence briefing that could “ play into ” the FBI ’ s “ investigative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Strzok to Bill Priestap , the Former Assistant Director for the Counterintelligence Division , refers to what appears to be a confidential informant in the White House .
The email was sent the day after Trump ’ s inauguration .
“ I heard from [ redacted ] about the WH CI briefing routed from [ redacted ] , ” wrote Strzok .
“ I am angry that Jen did not at least cc : me , as my branch has pending investigative matters there , this brief may play into our investigative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ability to have visibility and provide thoughts/counsel to you in advance of the briefing .
This is one of the reasons why I raised the issue of lanes/responsibilities that I did when you asked her to handle WH detailee interaction.
” In April , 2019 this reporter first published information that there was an alleged confidential informant for the FBI in the White House .
In fact , then senior Republican Chairmen of the Senate Appropriations Committee Charles Grassley and Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson submitted a letter to Department of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new texts from Strzok to Page showing the pair had discussed attempts to recruit sources within the White House to allegedly spy on the Trump administration .
The Chairmen revealed the information in a three page letter .
The texts had been already been obtained by SaraACarter.com and information regarding the possible attempt to recruit White House sources had been divulged by several sources to this news site last week .
At the time , texts obtained by this news site and sources stated that Strzok had one significant contact within the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been Vice President Mike Pence ’ s Chief of Staff Joshua Pitcock , as reported .
Over the past year , Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz , along with years of numerous Congressional investigations , has uncovered a plethora of documentation revealing the most intimate details of the FBI ’ s now debunked investigation into Trump ’ s campaign and its alleged conspiracy with Russia .
For example , in a series of emails exchanged by top bureau officials – in the FBI General Counsel ’ s office , Counterintelligence Division @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2017 – reveal that senior leadership , including former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe were coordinating with each other in their ongoing attempt to target the incoming administration .
Priestap was also included in the email exchanges .
The recent discovery in April , of Priestap ’ s handwritten notes taken in January , 2017 before the Strzok and his FBI partner interviewed Flynn were a bombshell .
In Priestap ’ s notes he states , “ What ’ s our goal ?
Truth/Admission or to get him to lie , so we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” In one recent email chain obtained by Judicial Watch , FBI assistant general counsel in the FBI ’ s National Security Law Branch stated in an email to Strzok [ which was almost entirely redacted ] “ I ’ ll give Trisha/Baker a heads up too , ” it stated .
Strzok ’ s reply to the assistant general counsel , however , was redacted by DOJ .
The response back to Strzok has also been redacted .
Then later in the evening at 7:04 p.m. , Strzok sends another emails @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Priestap ) this afternoon and he was trying without success to reach the DD [ McCabe ] .
I will forward below to him as his [ sic ] changes the timeline .
What ’ s your recommendation ?
” The reply , like many of the documents obtained by Judicial Watch from the DOJ , is almost entirely redacted .
The email response to Strzok was from the Counterintelligence Division .
Here ’ s what was not redacted “ Approved by tomorrow afternoon is the request .
[ Redacted ] – please @ @ @ @ @ @ @ An unidentified official replies , “ [ Redacted ] , Bill is aware and willing to jump in when we need him.
” Judicial Watch Timeline of Events On Emails Obtained Through FOIA At 8 p.m. , Strzok responds back ( copying officials in the Counterintelligence Division , Washington Field Office and General Counsel ’ s office ) : “ Just talked with Bill .
[ Redacted ] .
Please relay above to WFO and [ redacted ] tonight , and keep me updated with plan for meet and results of same .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole email exchange to Lisa Page , saying , “ Bill spoke with Andy .
[ Redacted . ]
Here we go again … ” The day after Trump ’ s inauguration , on Jan. 21 , 2017 , Strzok forwarded Page and [ a redacted person ] an email he ’ d sent that day to Priestap .
Strzok asked them to “ not forward/share.
” In the email to Priestap , Strzok said , “ I heard from [ redacted ] about the WH CI briefing routed from [ redacted ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not at least cc : me , as my branch has pending investigative matters there , this brief may play into our investigative strategy , and I would like the ability to have visibility and provide thoughts/counsel to you in advance of the briefing .
This is one of the reasons why I raised the issue of lanes/responsibilities that I did when you asked her to handle WH detailee interaction.
” “ Also , on January 21 , 2017 , Strzok wrote largely the same message he ’ d sent to Priestap directly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” states Judicial Watch .
The records were produced to Judicial Watch in a January 2018 Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA ) lawsuit filed after the DOJ failed to respond to a December 2017 request for all communications between Strzok and Page ( Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice ( No .
1:18-cv-00154 ) ) .
The FBI has only processed emails at a rate of 500 pages per month and has yet to process text messages .
At this rate , the production of these communications , which still number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ completed until at least late 2021 .
In other emails , Strzok comments on reporting on the anti-Trump dossier authored by Hillary Clinton ’ s paid operative Christopher Steele .
In a January 2017 email , Strzok takes issue with a UK Independent report which claimed Steele had suspected there was a “ cabal ” within the FBI which put the Clinton email investigation above the Trump-Russia probe .
Strzok , a veteran counterintelligence agent , was at the heart of both the Clinton email and Trump-Russia investigations .
In April and June @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dossier as key evidence in obtaining FISA warrants to spy on Trump campaign associate Carter Page .
In a declassified summary of a Department of Justice assessment of the warrants that was released by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ( FISC ) in January of this year , it was determined that those two applications to secretly monitor Page lacked probable cause .
The newly released records include a January 11 , 2017 , email from Strzok to Lisa Page , Priestap , and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Jon Moffa , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the dossier as containing “ unsubstantiated accounts ” and “ unproven claims.
” In the email , Strzok comments on the article , calling it “ Pretty good reporting.
” On January 14 , 2017 , FBI Assistant Director for Public Affairs Michael Kortan forwards to Strzok , Page and Priestap a link to a UK Independent article entitled “ Former MI6 Agent Christopher Steele ’ s Frustration as FBI Sat On Donald Trump Russia File for Months ” .
The article , citing security sources , notes that “ Steele became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take action on the intelligence from others as well as him .
He came to believe there was a cover-up : that a cabal within the Bureau blocked a thorough inquiry into Mr Trump , focusing instead on the investigation into Clinton ’ s emails.
” Strzok responds : “ Thanks Mike .
Of course not accurate [ the cover-up/cabal nonsense ] .
Is that question gaining traction anywhere else ?
” The records also include a February 10 , 2017 , email from Strzok to Page mentioning then-national security adviser Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and includes a photo of Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak .
Strzok also makes a joke about how McCabe had fat shamed Kislyak .
On February 8 , 2017 , Strzok , under the subject “ RE : EO on Economic Espionage , ” emailed Lisa Page , saying , “ Please let [ redacted ] know I talked to [ redacted ] .
Tonight , he approached Flynn ’ s office and got no information.
” Strzok was responding to a copy of an email Page had sent him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ official to Deputy Director McCabe read : “ OPS has not received a draft EO on economic espionage .
Instead , the U.S. Chamber of Commerce advised OPS that they received a draft , but they did not send us the draft .
I ’ ll follow up with our detailees about this EO.
” Flynn resigned on February 13 , 2017 .
On January 26 , 2017 , Nancy McNamara of the FBI ’ s Inspection Division emailed Strzok and Priestap with the subject line “ Leak , ” saying , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forwarded to SIOC .
I got the tel call report , however [ redacted ] .
Feel free to give me a call if I have it wrong.
” Strzok forwarded the McNamara email to Lisa Page and an unidentified person in the General Counsel ’ s office , saying , “ Need to talk to you about how to respond to this.
” On January 11 , 2017 , Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff emailed Kortan , saying he ’ d learned that Steele had worked for the Bureau ’ s Eurasian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dossier on Trump-Russian “ collusion ” to the bureau in Rome .
Kortan forwards Isikoff ’ s email to aide Richard Quinn , who forwards to Strzok “ just for visibility ” .
Strzok forwards to his boss , Priestap and Moffa , saying , “ FYI , [ redacted ] , you or I should probably inform [ redacted ] .
How ’ s your relationship with him ?
Bill unless you object , I ’ ll let Parmaan [ presumably senior FBI official Bryan Paarmann ] know.
” Strzok forwards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On January 18 , 2017 , reporter Peter Elkind of ProPublica reached out to Kortan , asking to interview Strzok , Michael Steinbach , Jim Baker , Priestap , former FBI Director James Comey and DEA administrator Chuck Rosenberg for a story Elkind was working on .
Kortan replied , “ Okay , I will start organizing things.
” Further along in the thread , an FBI Press Office official reached out to an FBI colleague for assistance with the interviews , saying Steinbach had agreed to a “ background discussion ” with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ definitive ’ account of what happened during the Clinton investigation , specifically , Comey ’ s handling of the investigation , seeking to reconstruct and explain in much greater detail what he did and why he did it.
” In May 2017 , Elkind wrote an article titled “ The Problems With the FBI ’ s Email Investigation Went Well Beyond Comey , ” which in light of these documents , strongly suggests many FBI officials leaked to the publication .
Strzok ended up being scheduled to meet with Elkind at 9:30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before an Elkind interview of Comey ’ s chief of staff Jim Rybicki .
Elkind ’ s reporting on the Clinton email investigation was discussed at length in previous emails obtained by Judicial Watch .
“ These documents suggest that President Trump was targeted by the Comey FBI as soon as he stepped foot in the Oval Office , ” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton .
“ And now we see how the Comey FBI was desperate to spin , through high-level leaks , its mishandling of the Clinton email investigation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it should be noted that Wray ’ s FBI and Barr ’ s DOJ continue slow-walk the release of thousands of Page-Strzok emails – which means the remaining 8,000 pages of records won ’ t be reviewed and released until 2021-2022 !
” In February 2020 , Judicial Watch uncovered an August 2016 email in which Strzok says that Clinton , in her interview with the FBI about her email controversy , apologized for “ the work and effort ” it caused the bureau and she said she chose to use it “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it proved to be anything but.
” Strzok said Clinton ’ s apology and the “ convenience ” discussion were “ not in ” the FBI 302 report that summarized the interview .
Also in February , Judicial Watch made public Strzok-Page emails showing their direct involvement in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane , the bureau ’ s investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia .
The records also show additional “ confirmed classified emails ” were found on Clinton ’ s unsecure non-state.gov email server “ beyond the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s statements ; Strzok and Page questioning the access the DOJ was granting Clinton ’ s lawyers ; and Page revealing that the DOJ was making edits to FBI 302 reports related to the Clinton Midyear Exam investigation .
The emails detail a discussion about “ squashing ” an issue related to the Seth Rich controversy .
In January 2020 , Judicial Watch uncovered Strzok-Page emails that detail special accommodations given to the lawyers of Clinton and her aides during the FBI investigation of the Clinton email controversy .
In November 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show the attorney representing three of Clinton ’ s aides were given meetings with senior FBI officials .
Also in November , Judicial Watch uncovered emails revealing that after Clinton ’ s statement denying the transmission of classified information over her unsecure email system , Strzok sent an email to FBI officials citing “ three [ Clinton email ] chains ” containing ( C ) [ classified ] portion marks in front of paragraphs.
” In a related case , in May 2020 , Judicial Watch received the “ electronic communication ” ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation , termed “ Crossfire Hurricane , ” of President Trump ’ s 2016 presidential campaign .
The document was written by former FBI official Peter Strzok .
( TLB ) published this article from Sara Carter with our appreciation to Sara for sharing the research and story .

Judicial Watch Uncovers Explosive FBI Emails, Appearing To Reference A WH ‘Confidential Informant’
Sara Carter
A top government watchdog group obtained 136 pages of never before publicized emails between former FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and one in particular appears to refer to a confidential informant inside the White House in 2017, according to a press release from Judicial Watch.
Those emails, some of which are heavily redacted, reveal that “Strzok, Page and top bureau officials in the days prior to and following President Donald Trump’s inauguration discussing a White House counterintelligence briefing that could “play into” the FBI’s “investigative strategy.”
Moreover, another email sent by Strzok to Bill Priestap, the Former Assistant Director for the Counterintelligence Division, refers to what appears to be a confidential informant in the White House. The email was sent the day after Trump’s inauguration.
“I heard from [redacted] about the WH CI briefing routed from [redacted],” wrote Strzok. “I am angry that Jen did not at least cc: me, as my branch has pending investigative matters there, this brief may play into our investigative strategy, and I would like the ability to have visibility and provide thoughts/counsel to you in advance of the briefing. This is one of the reasons why I raised the issue of lanes/responsibilities that I did when you asked her to handle WH detailee interaction.”
In April, 2019 this reporter first published information that there was an alleged confidential informant for the FBI in the White House. In fact, then senior Republican Chairmen of the Senate Appropriations Committee Charles Grassley and Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson submitted a letter to Department of Justice Attorney General William Barr revealing the new texts from Strzok to Page showing the pair had discussed attempts to recruit sources within the White House to allegedly spy on the Trump administration.
The Chairmen revealed the information in a three page letter. The texts had been already been obtained by SaraACarter.com and information regarding the possible attempt to recruit White House sources had been divulged by several sources to this news site last week.
At the time, texts obtained by this news site and sources stated that Strzok had one significant contact within the White House – at the time that would have been Vice President Mike Pence’s Chief of Staff Joshua Pitcock, as reported.
Over the past year, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, along with years of numerous Congressional investigations, has uncovered a plethora of documentation revealing the most intimate details of the FBI’s now debunked investigation into Trump’s campaign and its alleged conspiracy with Russia.
For example, in a series of emails exchanged by top bureau officials – in the FBI General Counsel’s office, Counterintelligence Division and Washington Field office on Jan. 19, 2017 – reveal that senior leadership, including former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe were coordinating with each other in their ongoing attempt to target the incoming administration. Priestap was also included in the email exchanges. The recent discovery in April, of Priestap’s handwritten notes taken in January, 2017 before the Strzok and his FBI partner interviewed Flynn were a bombshell. In Priestap’s notes he states, “What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”
In one recent email chain obtained by Judicial Watch, FBI assistant general counsel in the FBI’s National Security Law Branch stated in an email to Strzok [which was almost entirely redacted]
“I’ll give Trisha/Baker a heads up too,” it stated. Strzok’s reply to the assistant general counsel, however, was redacted by DOJ. The response back to Strzok has also been redacted.
Then later in the evening at 7:04 p.m., Strzok sends another emails stating, “I briefed Bill (Priestap) this afternoon and he was trying without success to reach the DD [McCabe]. I will forward below to him as his [sic] changes the timeline. What’s your recommendation?”
The reply, like many of the documents obtained by Judicial Watch from the DOJ, is almost entirely redacted. The email response to Strzok was from the Counterintelligence Division.
Here’s what was not redacted
“Approved by tomorrow afternoon is the request. [Redacted] – please advise if I am missing something.” An unidentified official replies, “[Redacted], Bill is aware and willing to jump in when we need him.”
Judicial Watch Timeline of Events On Emails Obtained Through FOIA
At 8 p.m., Strzok responds back (copying officials in the Counterintelligence Division, Washington Field Office and General Counsel’s office):
“Just talked with Bill. [Redacted]. Please relay above to WFO and [redacted] tonight, and keep me updated with plan for meet and results of same. Good luck.”
Strzok then forwards the whole email exchange to Lisa Page, saying, “Bill spoke with Andy. [Redacted.] Here we go again …”
The Day After Trump’s Inauguration
The day after Trump’s inauguration, on Jan. 21, 2017, Strzok forwarded Page and [a redacted person] an email he’d sent that day to Priestap. Strzok asked them to “not forward/share.”
In the email to Priestap, Strzok said, “I heard from [redacted] about the WH CI briefing routed from [redacted]. I am angry that Jen did not at least cc: me, as my branch has pending investigative matters there, this brief may play into our investigative strategy, and I would like the ability to have visibility and provide thoughts/counsel to you in advance of the briefing. This is one of the reasons why I raised the issue of lanes/responsibilities that I did when you asked her to handle WH detailee interaction.”
“Also, on January 21, 2017, Strzok wrote largely the same message he’d sent to Priestap directly to his counterintelligence colleague Jennifer Boone,” states Judicial Watch.
From Judicial Watch Press Release:
The records were produced to Judicial Watch in a January 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the DOJ failed to respond to a December 2017 request for all communications between Strzok and Page (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00154)).
The FBI has only processed emails at a rate of 500 pages per month and has yet to process text messages. At this rate, the production of these communications, which still number around 8,000 pages, would not be completed until at least late 2021.
In other emails, Strzok comments on reporting on the anti-Trump dossier authored by Hillary Clinton’s paid operative Christopher Steele.
In a January 2017 email, Strzok takes issue with a UK Independent report which claimed Steele had suspected there was a “cabal” within the FBI which put the Clinton email investigation above the Trump-Russia probe. Strzok, a veteran counterintelligence agent, was at the heart of both the Clinton email and Trump-Russia investigations.
In April and June of 2017, the FBI would use the dossier as key evidence in obtaining FISA warrants to spy on Trump campaign associate Carter Page. In a declassified summary of a Department of Justice assessment of the warrants that was released by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in January of this year, it was determined that those two applications to secretly monitor Page lacked probable cause.
The newly released records include a January 11, 2017, email from Strzok to Lisa Page, Priestap, and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Jon Moffa, a New York Times report which refers to the dossier as containing “unsubstantiated accounts” and “unproven claims.” In the email, Strzok comments on the article, calling it “Pretty good reporting.”
On January 14, 2017, FBI Assistant Director for Public Affairs Michael Kortan forwards to Strzok, Page and Priestap a link to a UK Independent article entitled “Former MI6 Agent Christopher Steele’s Frustration as FBI Sat On Donald Trump Russia File for Months”.
The article, citing security sources, notes that “Steele became increasingly frustrated that the FBI was failing to take action on the intelligence from others as well as him. He came to believe there was a cover-up: that a cabal within the Bureau blocked a thorough inquiry into Mr Trump, focusing instead on the investigation into Clinton’s emails.”
Strzok responds: “Thanks Mike. Of course not accurate [the cover-up/cabal nonsense]. Is that question gaining traction anywhere else?”
The records also include a February 10, 2017, email from Strzok to Page mentioning then-national security adviser Michael Flynn (five days before Flynn resigned) and includes a photo of Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Strzok also makes a joke about how McCabe had fat shamed Kislyak.
On February 8, 2017, Strzok, under the subject “RE: EO on Economic Espionage,” emailed Lisa Page, saying, “Please let [redacted] know I talked to [redacted]. Tonight, he approached Flynn’s office and got no information.” Strzok was responding to a copy of an email Page had sent him. The email, from a redacted FBI official to Deputy Director McCabe read: “OPS has not received a draft EO on economic espionage. Instead, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce advised OPS that they received a draft, but they did not send us the draft. I’ll follow up with our detailees about this EO.” Flynn resigned on February 13, 2017.
On January 26, 2017, Nancy McNamara of the FBI’s Inspection Division emailed Strzok and Priestap with the subject line “Leak,” saying, “Tried calling you but the phones are forwarded to SIOC. I got the tel call report, however [redacted]. Feel free to give me a call if I have it wrong.” Strzok forwarded the McNamara email to Lisa Page and an unidentified person in the General Counsel’s office, saying, “Need to talk to you about how to respond to this.”
On January 11, 2017, Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff emailed Kortan, saying he’d learned that Steele had worked for the Bureau’s Eurasian organized crime section and had turned over the dossier on Trump-Russian “collusion” to the bureau in Rome. Kortan forwards Isikoff’s email to aide Richard Quinn, who forwards to Strzok “just for visibility”. Strzok forwards to his boss, Priestap and Moffa, saying, “FYI, [redacted], you or I should probably inform [redacted]. How’s your relationship with him? Bill unless you object, I’ll let Parmaan [presumably senior FBI official Bryan Paarmann] know.” Strzok forwards the whole exchange onto Lisa Page.
On January 18, 2017, reporter Peter Elkind of ProPublica reached out to Kortan, asking to interview Strzok, Michael Steinbach, Jim Baker, Priestap, former FBI Director James Comey and DEA administrator Chuck Rosenberg for a story Elkind was working on. Kortan replied, “Okay, I will start organizing things.” Further along in the thread, an FBI Press Office official reached out to an FBI colleague for assistance with the interviews, saying Steinbach had agreed to a “background discussion” with Elkind, who was “writing the ‘definitive’ account of what happened during the Clinton investigation, specifically, Comey’s handling of the investigation, seeking to reconstruct and explain in much greater detail what he did and why he did it.” In May 2017, Elkind wrote an article titled “The Problems With the FBI’s Email Investigation Went Well Beyond Comey,” which in light of these documents, strongly suggests many FBI officials leaked to the publication.
Strzok ended up being scheduled to meet with Elkind at 9:30 a.m. on January 31, 2017, before an Elkind interview of Comey’s chief of staff Jim Rybicki. Elkind’s reporting on the Clinton email investigation was discussed at length in previous emails obtained by Judicial Watch.
“These documents suggest that President Trump was targeted by the Comey FBI as soon as he stepped foot in the Oval Office,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And now we see how the Comey FBI was desperate to spin, through high-level leaks, its mishandling of the Clinton email investigation. And, in a continuing outrage, it should be noted that Wray’s FBI and Barr’s DOJ continue slow-walk the release of thousands of Page-Strzok emails – which means the remaining 8,000 pages of records won’t be reviewed and released until 2021-2022!”
In February 2020, Judicial Watch uncovered an August 2016 email in which Strzok says that Clinton, in her interview with the FBI about her email controversy, apologized for “the work and effort” it caused the bureau and she said she chose to use it “out of convenience” and that “it proved to be anything but.” Strzok said Clinton’s apology and the “convenience” discussion were “not in” the FBI 302 report that summarized the interview.
Also in February, Judicial Watch made public Strzok-Page emails showing their direct involvement in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the bureau’s investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The records also show additional “confirmed classified emails” were found on Clinton’s unsecure non-state.gov email server “beyond the number presented” in then-FBI Director James Comey’s statements; Strzok and Page questioning the access the DOJ was granting Clinton’s lawyers; and Page revealing that the DOJ was making edits to FBI 302 reports related to the Clinton Midyear Exam investigation. The emails detail a discussion about “squashing” an issue related to the Seth Rich controversy.
In January 2020, Judicial Watch uncovered Strzok-Page emails that detail special accommodations given to the lawyers of Clinton and her aides during the FBI investigation of the Clinton email controversy.
In November 2019, Judicial Watch revealed Strzok-Page emails that show the attorney representing three of Clinton’s aides were given meetings with senior FBI officials.
Also in November, Judicial Watch uncovered emails revealing that after Clinton’s statement denying the transmission of classified information over her unsecure email system, Strzok sent an email to FBI officials citing “three [Clinton email] chains” containing (C) [classified] portion marks in front of paragraphs.”
In a related case, in May 2020, Judicial Watch received the “electronic communication” (EC) that officially launched the counterintelligence investigation, termed “Crossfire Hurricane,” of President Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. The document was written by former FBI official Peter Strzok.
(TLB) published this article from Sara Carter with our appreciation to Sara for sharing the research and story.
••••
••••
Stay tuned to …
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.


thelibertybeacon--2020-07-18--They Don’t Know What They Are Doing … The Vaccine Paradigm’s Shaky Assumptions

They Don ’ t Know What They ’ re Doing : The Vaccine Paradigm ’ s Shaky Assumptions As the endlessly reassuring pronouncements about high-risk Covid-19 vaccines indicate , vaccine scientists are nothing if not confident .
Underlying their overweening confidence is a paradigm that has remained essentially unchanged since vaccination ’ s inception , notwithstanding seismic changes in vaccine technology and vaccine schedules .
This paradigm narrowly evaluates a given vaccine ’ s effects against the target illness but pays little ( if any ) heed to vaccinated individuals ’ overall health or to overall mortality .
Adherents of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack of curiosity about whether vaccines have different impacts on boys versus girls or whether the sequence and combination in which vaccines are given matter .
Individuals who teach the scientific method have pointed out that a scientific paradigm represents a “ lens ” that can be “ recognized by the set of assumptions that an observer might not realize he or she is making , but which imply many automatic expectations and simultaneously prevent the observer from seeing the issue in any other fashion.
” The authors of a July 2020 commentary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vaccinology : time to change the paradigm ?
” ) make this very point , arguing that decades of vaccine research not only have failed to address important inconsistencies but also contradict many of the assumptions that drive global vaccine policies and programs .
As one of the authors ( Danish scientist Peter Aaby ) stated in 2019 , “ most of you think that we know what all our vaccines are doing—we don ’ t. ” Aaby and coauthors are staunch advocates of vaccination .
However , over the course of 40-plus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they have gathered enough observations and data to be persuaded that vaccines have “ non-specific effects ” on the immune system—in other words , effects “ other than the intended effect of reducing disease from the specific vaccination.
” In their Lancet commentary , they outline six principles to explain these effects .
Some non-specific effects , in the Aaby group ’ s view , are beneficial .
The researchers believe , for example , that live virus vaccines can “ enhance resistance towards unrelated infections ” ( Principle 1 ) and—in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine-induced immunity—may enhance other beneficial non-specific effects ( Principle 5 ) .
On the other hand , some researchers ( Aaby and also others ) are willing to cop to the fact that certain non-specific effects are plainly deleterious .
In 2017 , Australian researchers who looked into non-specific ( “ heterologous ” ) effects described undesirable outcomes ranging from decreased resistance to infection to “ altered susceptibility to allergy , autoimmunity , and malignancy.
” These are bad enough , but what the Australians emphasized most strongly—citing the Aaby group ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in deaths from all causes , particularly with reference to diphtheria , tetanus and whole-cell pertussis ( DTP ) vaccines .
In the Lancet commentary , Aaby and coauthors encapsulate this observation as Principle 2 , stating that “ non-live vaccines enhance susceptibility towards unrelated infections for females.
” More powerfully , they report that 17 different studies examining all-cause mortality in DTP-vaccinated children found higher mortality in girls than boys , whereas in the pre-vaccination era in west Africa , there was no excess mortality in girls at all .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fared worse—in terms of non-specific effects and excess all-cause mortality—with a number of other vaccines , including the inactivated polio ( IPV ) , hepatitis B ( HepB ) and H1N1 influenza vaccines as well as a widely used pentavalent vaccine that contains DTP , HepB and Haemophilus influenzae type b ( Hib ) components .
In addition , Phase 3 trials in Africa of GlaxoSmithKline ’ s experimental malaria vaccine in 2015 were associated with two times higher all-cause mortality in girls and a higher risk of fatal malaria in girls .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that GSK ’ s malaria vaccine was “ the first recombinant viral nanoparticle vaccine to show heterologous effects , ” the Australian researchers warned in 2017 “ that engineered vaccines , and not just pathogen-derived vaccines , may need to be carefully evaluated for non-specific as well as specific effects before wide-scale implementation.
” They further noted the lack of any research assessing whether pentavalent vaccines “ have similar heterologous effects to the component vaccines contained in them.
” The analyses carried out by Aaby and colleagues have not focused solely on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ versus unvaccinated comparisons .
Ten studies that examined all-cause mortality in DTP-vaccinated versus DTP-unvaccinated African children showed higher mortality ( an average of two times higher across the 10 studies ) for the vaccinated group .
The disturbing take-home message of this meticulous body of research is that the DTP vaccine – heavily promoted by both the World Health Organization ( WHO ) and its leading donor , Bill Gates – is killing more children than the diseases that the vaccine targets .
Why this is the case has to do with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Principle 3 ( “ the most recent vaccination has the strongest non-specific effects ” ) and Principle 4 ( “ combinations of live and non-live vaccines given together have variable [ non-specific effects ] ” ) .
The researchers explain : With Principle 6 ( “ vaccines might interact with other interventions affecting the immune system ” ) , Aaby and coauthors also consider the interaction between vaccines and other health interventions .
They note a study showing that whereas vitamin A supplementation benefited children who had not been vaccinated , “ [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccinated , supplementation with vitamin A was associated with a tendency for increased mortality in girls.
” To evolve with integrity , science requires “ paying attention to anomalous , strange or unwelcome observations.
” This is exactly what the Aaby group has done , but for most vaccinologists – content to leave their assumptions untouched – the Danish researchers ’ findings about non-specific effects and excess mortality are probably “ unwelcome ” indeed .
A writer for the American Council on Science and Health ( which claims that it has been “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ) admits as much , describing the Lancet article as a “ dangerous paper ” and worrying about its potential to serve as “ ammunition ” for anti-vaxxers and “ those who have nefarious purposes ” —individuals who might willingly “ hijack ” the findings to “ claim that vaccines and the CDC ’ s recommended vaccine schedule aren ’ t safe.
” In reality , the Aaby group ’ s findings about vaccination and mortality—and their remarkable consistency – can stand on their own two feet , no hijacking required .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rushed rollout , the true dangers come from allowing rigid , complacent and dishonest vaccine scientists to keep pretending that their flawed vaccine paradigm is safe .
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate , and for this we are grateful and excited !
But we must also be practical .
For 7 years we have not asked for any donations , and have built this project with our own funds as we grew .
We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them .
Nothing is too small .
We thank you for all your support and your considerations … ( TLB )

They Don’t Know What They’re Doing: The Vaccine Paradigm’s Shaky Assumptions
By: the Children’s Health Defense Team
As the endlessly reassuring pronouncements about high-risk Covid-19 vaccines indicate, vaccine scientists are nothing if not confident. Underlying their overweening confidence is a paradigm that has remained essentially unchanged since vaccination’s inception, notwithstanding seismic changes in vaccine technology and vaccine schedules. This paradigm narrowly evaluates a given vaccine’s effects against the target illness but pays little (if any) heed to vaccinated individuals’ overall health or to overall mortality. Adherents of the prevailing paradigm also display a surprising lack of curiosity about whether vaccines have different impacts on boys versus girls or whether the sequence and combination in which vaccines are given matter.
Individuals who teach the scientific method have pointed out that a scientific paradigm represents a “lens” that can be “recognized by the set of assumptions that an observer might not realize he or she is making, but which imply many automatic expectations and simultaneously prevent the observer from seeing the issue in any other fashion.” The authors of a July 2020 commentary in Lancet Infectious Diseases (titled “Vaccinology: time to change the paradigm?”) make this very point, arguing that decades of vaccine research not only have failed to address important inconsistencies but also contradict many of the assumptions that drive global vaccine policies and programs. As one of the authors (Danish scientist Peter Aaby) stated in 2019, “most of you think that we know what all our vaccines are doing—we don’t.”
… they report that 17 different studies examining all-cause mortality in DTP-vaccinated children found higher mortality in girls than boys, whereas in the pre-vaccination era in west Africa, there was no excess mortality in girls at all.
“ Non-specific effects” and excess mortality
Aaby and coauthors are staunch advocates of vaccination. However, over the course of 40-plus years of health surveillance in west Africa, they have gathered enough observations and data to be persuaded that vaccines have “non-specific effects” on the immune system—in other words, effects “other than the intended effect of reducing disease from the specific vaccination.” In their Lancet commentary, they outline six principles to explain these effects.
Some non-specific effects, in the Aaby group’s view, are beneficial. The researchers believe, for example, that live virus vaccines can “enhance resistance towards unrelated infections” (Principle 1) and—in the presence of existing maternal or prior vaccine-induced immunity—may enhance other beneficial non-specific effects (Principle 5). On the other hand, some researchers (Aaby and also others) are willing to cop to the fact that certain non-specific effects are plainly deleterious. In 2017, Australian researchers who looked into non-specific (“heterologous”) effects described undesirable outcomes ranging from decreased resistance to infection to “altered susceptibility to allergy, autoimmunity, and malignancy.” These are bad enough, but what the Australians emphasized most strongly—citing the Aaby group’s large body of research—were alarming sex differentials in deaths from all causes, particularly with reference to diphtheria, tetanus and whole-cell pertussis (DTP) vaccines. In the Lancet commentary, Aaby and coauthors encapsulate this observation as Principle 2, stating that “non-live vaccines enhance susceptibility towards unrelated infections for females.” More powerfully, they report that 17 different studies examining all-cause mortality in DTP-vaccinated children found higher mortality in girls than boys, whereas in the pre-vaccination era in west Africa, there was no excess mortality in girls at all.
According to Aaby and colleagues, girls also have fared worse—in terms of non-specific effects and excess all-cause mortality—with a number of other vaccines, including the inactivated polio (IPV), hepatitis B (HepB) and H1N1 influenza vaccines as well as a widely used pentavalent vaccine that contains DTP, HepB and Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) components. In addition, Phase 3 trials in Africa of GlaxoSmithKline’s experimental malaria vaccine in 2015 were associated with two times higher all-cause mortality in girls and a higher risk of fatal malaria in girls. Commenting on this latter finding and the fact that GSK’s malaria vaccine was “the first recombinant viral nanoparticle vaccine to show heterologous effects,” the Australian researchers warned in 2017 “that engineered vaccines, and not just pathogen-derived vaccines, may need to be carefully evaluated for non-specific as well as specific effects before wide-scale implementation.” They further noted the lack of any research assessing whether pentavalent vaccines “have similar heterologous effects to the component vaccines contained in them.”
… the DTP vaccine—heavily promoted by both the World Health Organization (WHO) and its leading donor, Bill Gates—is killing more children than the diseases that the vaccine targets.
Which vaccines, when?
The analyses carried out by Aaby and colleagues have not focused solely on excess female mortality but also on vaccinated versus unvaccinated comparisons. Ten studies that examined all-cause mortality in DTP-vaccinated versus DTP-unvaccinated African children showed higher mortality (an average of two times higher across the 10 studies) for the vaccinated group. The disturbing take-home message of this meticulous body of research is that the DTP vaccine – heavily promoted by both the World Health Organization (WHO) and its leading donor, Bill Gates – is killing more children than the diseases that the vaccine targets.
Why this is the case has to do with the Aaby group’s somewhat broadly worded Principle 3 (“the most recent vaccination has the strongest non-specific effects”) and Principle 4 (“combinations of live and non-live vaccines given together have variable [non-specific effects]”). The researchers explain:
[I]n all studies exploring [sequence and combination], the incidence of all-cause mortality increases if the DTP vaccine is administered after the measles vaccine compared with inverse order. Likewise, administering the measles vaccine and DTP vaccine together is associated with higher incidence of all-cause mortality than only receiving the measles vaccine. [. . . ] In the USA, receiving live vaccines together with non-live vaccines was associated with higher risk of hospital admission for non-targeted infections than having a live vaccine only. [emphases added]
With Principle 6 (“vaccines might interact with other interventions affecting the immune system”), Aaby and coauthors also consider the interaction between vaccines and other health interventions. They note a study showing that whereas vitamin A supplementation benefited children who had not been vaccinated, “[i]n children who had been vaccinated, supplementation with vitamin A was associated with a tendency for increased mortality in girls.”
Dangerous—or scientific?
To evolve with integrity, science requires “paying attention to anomalous, strange or unwelcome observations.” This is exactly what the Aaby group has done, but for most vaccinologists – content to leave their assumptions untouched – the Danish researchers’ findings about non-specific effects and excess mortality are probably “unwelcome” indeed. A writer for the American Council on Science and Health (which claims that it has been “promoting science and debunking junk since 1978”) admits as much, describing the Lancet article as a “dangerous paper” and worrying about its potential to serve as “ammunition” for anti-vaxxers and “those who have nefarious purposes”—individuals who might willingly “hijack” the findings to “claim that vaccines and the CDC’s recommended vaccine schedule aren’t safe.” In reality, the Aaby group’s findings about vaccination and mortality—and their remarkable consistency – can stand on their own two feet, no hijacking required. As Covid-19 vaccines continue to hurtle toward a rushed rollout, the true dangers come from allowing rigid, complacent and dishonest vaccine scientists to keep pretending that their flawed vaccine paradigm is safe.
••••
••••
TLB Editors Note: This is World Mercury Project on steroids! TLB highly recommends you click on the image below, visit this great website, and do whatever you can to help see this vital forum succeed … for the sake of our children !!! Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.
••••
••••
Stay tuned to …
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.


thelibertybeacon--2020-07-19--‘Anti-vax’ Labelling & Mainstream Media: Who Is Coordinating This?

‘ Anti-vax ’ labelling and the mainstream media : Who is coordinating this ?
International vaccination policy is being manipulated to develop massive vaccine markets .
It ’ s time to throw a spotlight on conflicts of interest , and identify who is behind the demonising and censoring of people who question vaccination policy .
The mainstream media has been shown to be unreliable , biased , and often conflicted , and is failing to critically analyse and report on international vaccination policy for the global community .
Is the highly conflicted Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation shaping the media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This article published in February 2013 provides some interesting background on the Gates ’ historical influence on the media , noting that in 2012 , the Foundation gave out $ 25 million in media grants the previous year , which was less than 1 % of the organization ’ s budget .
In regards to biased media , see for example this article in The Guardian which includes references to Robert F. Kennedy , Jr. , Children ’ s Health Defense , and Stop Mandatory Vaccination .
The piece points out to readers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could affect Americans ’ willingness to take a Covid-19 vaccine , experts warn.
” Note that The Guardian receives funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation , which is driving “ the race ” for coronavirus vaccines .
This is yet another propaganda piece attempting to discredit and marginalise people who legitimately question international vaccination policy and the burgeoning number of vaccines being added to international vaccination schedules .
People with valid concerns about vaccinations are labelled “ anti-vaxxers ” and are described as being in the “ anti-vaxxer movement ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in broader society and to alienate them as “ untouchables ” .
Who is coordinating this ?
It ’ s been going on for years , starting with the demonising of Andrew Wakefield , ( via the Murdoch Sunday Times newspaper and The BMJ ) , central to the narrative , and has since widened to encompass others .
For those who follow such things , it ’ s obvious this is being orchestrated , but by whom ?
We know The Vaccine Confidence Project headed by Heidi Larson is a key entity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that this organisation has been funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in the past .
But there are others in the network of monitoring dissent including academics such as Julie Leask and Katie Attwell in Australia .
The lobbying of coercive vaccination groups such as SAVN and Friends of Science in Medicine in Australia , and similar lobbying internationally , must be investigated to understand the big picture .
We ’ ve seen the deliberate hindrance of discussion on vaccination going on for years , but it ’ s reaching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media interfering with citizens ’ rights to discuss vaccination .
It remains to be seen what will be the outcome of Donald Trump ’ s Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship .
Biased international media is cranking up yet again , with the current coronavirus crisis being used to demonise people questioning vaccination , and information is being twisted and ignored to suit the purposes of vested interests , see for example : • None How coronavirus ‘ changes the game ’ for the anti-vaccination movement ( ABC , Australia ) • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scam ’ and break distancing rules at anti-5G protests ( The Guardian ) • None Coronavirus anti-vaxxers aren ’ t a huge threat yet .
How do we keep it that way ?
( The Conversation , Australia ) • None The anti-vax movement is using growing hesitation around the coronavirus vaccine to attract more people ( Business Insider ) See also Tracking the Anti-Vaccination Movement , an article published by the National Press Foundation ( US ) , which reports on “ a new digital tool called Project VCTR that can track @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook , popular websites and other platforms ” .
And who is behind the official sounding “ National Press Foundation ” ?
Have a look at the list of funders which includes vaccine manufacturer GSK and a host of others who may have significant conflicts of interest .
Citizens questioning vaccination policy must be heard , and governments , vaccine manufacturers , and academics with conflicts of interest , must be stopped from executing Bill Gates mission to take away the fundamental human right of informed consent .
The ante has been upped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Bill Gates ’ insistence that a coronavirus vaccine be made “ available to almost every person on the planet ” .
In the space of a few months , we ’ ve seen another disease pop up as a global threat as the result of SARS-CoV-2 , a virus of still undetermined origin .
There are many unknowns about SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 , and yet it ’ s reported that over a hundred groups are involved in the “ race for the vaccine ” with highly questionable vaccine trials underway .
Even with all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calls for mandatory vaccines when they become available .
It ’ s shocking to see how this is being fast-tracked , without any real consideration of data from the current crisis .
In this regard , see Dr. Malcolm Kendrick ’ s blog post : COVID deaths – how accurate are the statistics ?
The driver of the current race for coronavirus vaccine products is Bill Gates , who has been manipulating international vaccination policy for years .
His Foundation is now the top financial donor to the World Health Organisation after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump .
Gates is an unelected individual who is wielding his enormous wealth and political influence to impose his will on the global community .
See for example Bill and Melinda Gates personal phone call with Boris Johnson , Bill Gates Seeks EU Help on Vaccine Aid , EU-led telethon raises 7.4 billion for vaccine financing – without US , and Australia pledges $ 350 million to EU coronavirus vaccine research fund .
James Corbett ’ s recent series of documentaries on Gates provides valuable history and analysis : Meet Bill Gates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the World ; How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health and Bill Gates and the Population Control Grid .
Corbett ’ s documentaries also include references to Gates buying the media including The Guardian , NPR and the BBC .
There must be an investigation into how international vaccination policy is being manipulated to develop massive vaccine markets .
We must throw the spotlight on conflicts of interest and those who are behind the demonising and censoring of people who question vaccination policy .
The mainstream media has been corrupted and is failing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than useless .
It ’ s time for citizens around the world to forge a new way ahead if we are to retain our basic human rights .
TLB Editors Note : This is World Mercury Project on steroids !
TLB highly recommends you click on the image below , visit this great website , and do whatever you can to help see this vital forum succeed … for the sake of our children !
!
!
Please take the time to Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health Defense .
Your donation will help to support us in our efforts .

‘Anti-vax’ labelling and the mainstream media: Who is coordinating this?
Guest editorial by Elizabeth Hart
International vaccination policy is being manipulated to develop massive vaccine markets. It’s time to throw a spotlight on conflicts of interest, and identify who is behind the demonising and censoring of people who question vaccination policy.
The mainstream media has been shown to be unreliable, biased, and often conflicted, and is failing to critically analyse and report on international vaccination policy for the global community.
Is the highly conflicted Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation shaping the media’s reporting on vaccination issues? This article published in February 2013 provides some interesting background on the Gates’ historical influence on the media, noting that in 2012, the Foundation gave out $25 million in media grants the previous year, which was less than 1% of the organization’s budget.
In regards to biased media, see for example this article in The Guardian which includes references to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Children’s Health Defense, and Stop Mandatory Vaccination. The piece points out to readers that “Anti-vaxxers’ influence and power could affect Americans’ willingness to take a Covid-19 vaccine, experts warn.” Note that The Guardian receives funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is driving “the race” for coronavirus vaccines.
This is yet another propaganda piece attempting to discredit and marginalise people who legitimately question international vaccination policy and the burgeoning number of vaccines being added to international vaccination schedules. People with valid concerns about vaccinations are labelled “anti-vaxxers” and are described as being in the “anti-vaxxer movement” in a manner that seeks to marginalise them in broader society and to alienate them as “untouchables”.
The lobbying of coercive vaccination groups such as Friends of Science in Medicine in Australia, and similar lobbying internationally, must be investigated to understand the big picture. The lobbying of coercive vaccination groups such as Friends of Science in Medicine in Australia, and similar lobbying internationally, must be investigated to understand the big picture.
Who is coordinating this?
It’s been going on for years, starting with the demonising of Andrew Wakefield, (via the Murdoch Sunday Times newspaper and The BMJ), central to the narrative, and has since widened to encompass others. For those who follow such things, it’s obvious this is being orchestrated, but by whom?
We know The Vaccine Confidence Project headed by Heidi Larson is a key entity in monitoring global dissent on vaccination, and that this organisation has been funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in the past. But there are others in the network of monitoring dissent including academics such as Julie Leask and Katie Attwell in Australia.
The lobbying of coercive vaccination groups such as SAVN and Friends of Science in Medicine in Australia, and similar lobbying internationally, must be investigated to understand the big picture.
Biased international media is cranking up yet again, with the current coronavirus crisis being used to demonise people questioning vaccination, & information is being twisted & ignored to suit the purposes of vested interests. … Biased international media is cranking up yet again, with the current coronavirus crisis being used to demonise people questioning vaccination, & information is being twisted & ignored to suit the purposes of vested interests. …
Reaching a crescendo
We’ve seen the deliberate hindrance of discussion on vaccination going on for years, but it’s reaching a crescendo now, with censorship on social media interfering with citizens’ rights to discuss vaccination. It remains to be seen what will be the outcome of Donald Trump’s Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship.
Biased international media is cranking up yet again, with the current coronavirus crisis being used to demonise people questioning vaccination, and information is being twisted and ignored to suit the purposes of vested interests, see for example:
See also Tracking the Anti-Vaccination Movement, an article published by the National Press Foundation (US), which reports on “a new digital tool called Project VCTR that can track anti-vax messengers and messages across Twitter, Facebook, popular websites and other platforms”. And who is behind the official sounding “National Press Foundation”? Have a look at the list of funders which includes vaccine manufacturer GSK and a host of others who may have significant conflicts of interest.
Questionable agendas/questionable vaccines
Citizens questioning vaccination policy must be heard, and governments, vaccine manufacturers, and academics with conflicts of interest, must be stopped from executing Bill Gates mission to take away the fundamental human right of informed consent.
The ante has been upped considerably with the arrival of COVID-19, and Bill Gates’ insistence that a coronavirus vaccine be made “available to almost every person on the planet”. In the space of a few months, we’ve seen another disease pop up as a global threat as the result of SARS-CoV-2, a virus of still undetermined origin.
There are many unknowns about SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19, and yet it’s reported that over a hundred groups are involved in the “race for the vaccine” with highly questionable vaccine trials underway. Even with all of these unknowns, already there are calls for mandatory vaccines when they become available. It’s shocking to see how this is being fast-tracked, without any real consideration of data from the current crisis. In this regard, see Dr. Malcolm Kendrick’s blog post: COVID deaths – how accurate are the statistics?
[Bill] Gates is an unelected individual who is wielding his enormous wealth and political influence to impose his will on the global community. [Bill] Gates is an unelected individual who is wielding his enormous wealth and political influence to impose his will on the global community.
The Gates factor
The driver of the current race for coronavirus vaccine products is Bill Gates, who has been manipulating international vaccination policy for years. His Foundation is now the top financial donor to the World Health Organisation after the recent withdrawal of the US by President Donald Trump.
Gates is an unelected individual who is wielding his enormous wealth and political influence to impose his will on the global community. See for example Bill and Melinda Gates personal phone call with Boris Johnson, Bill Gates Seeks EU Help on Vaccine Aid, EU-led telethon raises 7.4 billion for vaccine financing – without US, and Australia pledges $350 million to EU coronavirus vaccine research fund.
James Corbett’s recent series of documentaries on Gates provides valuable history and analysis: Meet Bill Gates; Bill Gates’ Plan to Vaccinate the World; How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health and Bill Gates and the Population Control Grid. Corbett’s documentaries also include references to Gates buying the media including The Guardian, NPR and the BBC.
There must be an investigation into how international vaccination policy is being manipulated to develop massive vaccine markets. We must throw the spotlight on conflicts of interest and those who are behind the demonising and censoring of people who question vaccination policy.
The mainstream media has been corrupted and is failing the global community; it’s worse than useless. It’s time for citizens around the world to forge a new way ahead if we are to retain our basic human rights.
••••
••••
TLB Editors Note: This is World Mercury Project on steroids! TLB highly recommends you click on the image below, visit this great website, and do whatever you can to help see this vital forum succeed … for the sake of our children !!!
Please take the time to Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
••••
••••
••••
Stay tuned to …
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.


thelibertybeacon--2020-07-19--UK Govt Panicking As Fraudulent COVID Death Count is Revealed

ER Editor : See also this short Guardian article from two days ago titled Matt Hancock orders urgent review of PHE Covid-19 death figures , an investigation prompted by the work of Dr. Carl Heneghan and a colleague at Oxford University ’ s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine .
It was Heneghan ’ s data research which showed that covid cases in the UK had peaked BEFORE the lockdown was unnecessarily introduced .
See REVEALED : UK Ministers Knew Crisis Had Peaked Before Lockdown , But Panicked Anyway .
We also recommend this piece by Kit Knightly for Off-Guardian on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t ( finally ) admits Covid statistics are inaccurate .
Today the public have been told via the mainstream press that UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock is now ‘ looking into ’ how data regarding coronavirus fatalities is being recorded .
This , despite months of reporting by dissenting journalists who have been challenging the official government line raising this issue .
We ’ re told all this comes after Public Health England ( PHE ) confirmed that people who are dying of natural causes are also being counted as ‘ COVID deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they had previously tested positive for the virus .
Officials are calling this “ a strange anomaly , ” but it ’ s much more than that .
Quite clearly , Hancock and the Tory government are implementing damage control here , as this scandal is rapidly being disseminated across the public discourse , and for fear that the wider scale of the statistical fraud might be revealed .
By calling for a “ urgent review , ” the Johnson government hopes to avoid a likely backlash from what can only be described @ @ @ @ @ @ @ England and Westminster .
All of the governments seemingly half-baked policies – from Lockdown , to shutting down normal NHS services ( making it a de facto ‘ COVID only ’ health service ) , to nonsensical ad hoc ‘ social distancing ’ regulations , mass testing , contact tracing , to mandatory masks , to school closures , travel bans and quarantines , to its rush to push-out an experimental coronavirus vaccine – are all predicated on what seems very likely to be false perception that COVID-19 is an unprecedented ‘ pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It seems that government can no longer hide that it has been counting scores of people who ’ ve died from natural causes as ‘ COVID deaths ’ .
One can only guess just how many deaths have been wrongly recorded in this way .
A source says that , “ We noticed that hospital deaths were falling but community deaths were up and wondered why … .
It turns out you could have been tested positive in February , recovered , then hit by a bus in July and you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Essentially , PHE is counting people if they die of any cause at any time after previously testing positive for COVID .
So by this government measure , one can never ‘ recover ’ from the virus .
They simply keep the ‘ death meter ’ running forever , which is effectively padding their statistics and thus justifying any policy which is being drifted out each day .
This can only be described as fraudulent data gathering and recording by health officials , which has unfortunately been swallowed , unquestioningly , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last 4 and half months .
What ’ s more , these figures are concealing an even bigger scandal – more likely these numbers are driving excess mortality .
In other words , the inconvenient truth that most of these are in fact Lockdown deaths , and not COVID deaths .
IMAGE : UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock trying to sell the crisis to public .
The government ’ s own figures show there have been 45,119 COVID-19 associated deaths across the UK .
But that tally is feared to be inaccurate due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in England .
A government source confirmed that PHE ’ s current method of calculation means if a person was previously diagnosed with COVID-19 but subsequently died of unrelated causes , their death would still be counted as part of PHE ’ s daily coronavirus death tally .
In Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland , you are assumed to have recovered 28 days after a positive test .
( … ) A recent article published by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine ( CEBM ) , based at Oxford University , described the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ no one can ever recover from COVID-19 in England ” .
“ It seems that PHE regularly looks for people on the NHS database who have ever tested positive , and simply checks to see if they are still alive or not , ” said the article ’ s authors Professor Yoon Loke , from the University of East Anglia , and Professor Carl Heneghan , from Oxford University .
“ PHE does not appear to consider how long ago the COVID test result was , nor whether the person has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the community .
“ Anyone who has tested COVID positive but subsequently died at a later date of any cause will be included on the PHE COVID death figures .
“ By this PHE definition , no one with COVID in England is allowed to ever recover from their illness .
“ A patient who has tested positive , but successfully treated and discharged from hospital , will still be counted as a COVID death even if they had a heart attack or were run over by a bus three months later.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @

ER Editor: See also this short Guardian article from two days ago titled Matt Hancock orders urgent review of PHE Covid-19 death figures, an investigation prompted by the work of Dr. Carl Heneghan and a colleague at Oxford University’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. It was Heneghan’s data research which showed that covid cases in the UK had peaked BEFORE the lockdown was unnecessarily introduced. See REVEALED: UK Ministers Knew Crisis Had Peaked Before Lockdown, But Panicked Anyway.
We also recommend this piece by Kit Knightly for Off-Guardian on the same topic, titled UK gov’t (finally) admits Covid statistics are inaccurate.
********
Today the public have been told via the mainstream press that UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock is now ‘looking into’ how data regarding coronavirus fatalities is being recorded. This, despite months of reporting by dissenting journalists who have been challenging the official government line raising this issue.
Downplaying a ‘Strange Anomaly’
We’re told all this comes after Public Health England (PHE) confirmed that people who are dying of natural causes are also being counted as ‘COVID deaths’ by virtue of the fact that they had previously tested positive for the virus.
Officials are calling this “a strange anomaly,” but it’s much more than that.
Quite clearly, Hancock and the Tory government are implementing damage control here, as this scandal is rapidly being disseminated across the public discourse, and for fear that the wider scale of the statistical fraud might be revealed.
By calling for a “urgent review,” the Johnson government hopes to avoid a likely backlash from what can only be described as a historic fiasco for Public Health England and Westminster.
All of the governments seemingly half-baked policies – from Lockdown, to shutting down normal NHS services (making it a de facto ‘COVID only’ health service), to nonsensical ad hoc ‘social distancing’ regulations, mass testing, contact tracing, to mandatory masks, to school closures, travel bans and quarantines, to its rush to push-out an experimental coronavirus vaccine – are all predicated on what seems very likely to be false perception that COVID-19 is an unprecedented ‘pandemic’ and therefore requires unprecedented mitigation measures.
It seems that government can no longer hide that it has been counting scores of people who’ve died from natural causes as ‘COVID deaths’. One can only guess just how many deaths have been wrongly recorded in this way.
A source says that, “We noticed that hospital deaths were falling but community deaths were up and wondered why …. It turns out you could have been tested positive in February, recovered, then hit by a bus in July and you’d be recorded as a covid death.”
Essentially, PHE is counting people if they die of any cause at any time after previously testing positive for COVID. So by this government measure, one can never ‘recover’ from the virus. They simply keep the ‘death meter’ running forever, which is effectively padding their statistics and thus justifying any policy which is being drifted out each day.
This can only be described as fraudulent data gathering and recording by health officials, which has unfortunately been swallowed, unquestioningly, by politicians and the mainstream media for the last 4 and half months.
What’s more, these figures are concealing an even bigger scandal – more likely these numbers are driving excess mortality. In other words, the inconvenient truth that most of these are in fact Lockdown deaths, and not COVID deaths.
Sky News reports…
IMAGE: UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock trying to sell the crisis to public.
The government’s own figures show there have been 45,119 COVID-19 associated deaths across the UK.
But that tally is feared to be inaccurate due to the way coronavirus deaths are recorded in England.
Explaining the “strange anomaly”, Sky News’ Rowland Manthorpe said:
“Essentially, there is no way to recover, statistically. So, if I tested positive for COVID-19 today and then I got hit by a bus tomorrow, then COVID-19 would be listed as my cause of death.”
A government source confirmed that PHE’s current method of calculation means if a person was previously diagnosed with COVID-19 but subsequently died of unrelated causes, their death would still be counted as part of PHE’s daily coronavirus death tally.
In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, you are assumed to have recovered 28 days after a positive test.
(…) A recent article published by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM), based at Oxford University, described the “statistical anomaly” which means that “no one can ever recover from COVID-19 in England”.
“It seems that PHE regularly looks for people on the NHS database who have ever tested positive, and simply checks to see if they are still alive or not,” said the article’s authors Professor Yoon Loke, from the University of East Anglia, and Professor Carl Heneghan, from Oxford University.
“PHE does not appear to consider how long ago the COVID test result was, nor whether the person has been successfully treated in hospital and discharged to the community.
“Anyone who has tested COVID positive but subsequently died at a later date of any cause will be included on the PHE COVID death figures.
“By this PHE definition, no one with COVID in England is allowed to ever recover from their illness.
“A patient who has tested positive, but successfully treated and discharged from hospital, will still be counted as a COVID death even if they had a heart attack or were run over by a bus three months later.”
Continue with this story at SKY News
************