The Overton Window Is Opening Ever More Widely

As evidenced by the last 5 Op-Ed's I have published with Investigative Journalist Mary Beth Pfeiffer, it appears the public's appetite for objective, independant analysis of vaccine harm is increasing

From this article by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy:

The Overton Window is a model for understanding how ideas in society change over time and influence politics. The core concept is that politicians are limited in what policy ideas they can support — they generally only pursue policies that are widely accepted throughout society as legitimate policy options. These policies lie inside the Overton Window. Other policy ideas exist, but politicians risk losing popular support if they champion these ideas. These policies lie outside the Overton Window.

But the Overton Window can both shift and expand, either increasing or shrinking the number of ideas politicians can support without unduly risking their electoral support. Sometimes politicians can move the Overton Window themselves by courageously endorsing a policy lying outside the window, but this is rare. More often, the window moves based on a much more complex and dynamic phenomenon, one that is not easily controlled from on high: the slow evolution of societal values and norms.

The Overton window refers specifically to the kind of policies politicians can “legitimately” support over time without risking electoral support. In this context, I am using the Overton window concept to describe the kinds of articles (i.e policy conversations) that one can publish in “legitimate” media outlets without their editors thinking that the publication would risk their outlets’ financial support (given we live in a time of historically unprecedented censorship of medical information which the censors unanimously refer to as “medical misinformation” when it deviates from supposed “consensus”).

Specifically, I am referring to our (me and MaryBeth’s) newfound ability to openly discuss the harms of the mRNA vaccines in a major media outlet. Although unnecessary, I have to remind all of how censored the topic of vaccine harms has been during the pandemic. Massive, global censoring by high impact medical journals, public health agencies and officials, politicians and presidents, and worst of all by the world’s corporate controlled media.

The publication and content of our Op-Ed today in RealClear Health shows just how far we have come. We appreciate the editors who welcomed our deeply-researched article. It allows us to hopefully start a much-needed public conversation about the emerging data showing disturbing spikes in cancers and cancer deaths among young people.

Who knows, it might do something to limit the ability of our leaders to launch a dangerous and ultimately destructive global health experiment the next time there is a “public health emergency.” Even more, it may start to trigger the public to question the safety of the entire mRNA platform. That is, if our legislators are listening and want to help protect us from the WHO which will soon be gaining global power to manage the next “emergency” (note that in the upcoming global WHO treaty which will be voted on May 27th, they are claiming power over managing numerous types of emergencies, i.e. health, climate, food etc).

Now, in terms of the Overton window which looks at shifts in policy over time, last August we published the below Op-Ed in USA Today. It was the first major media publication to openly call attention to the massive rise in excess mortality amongst young people in 2021 (timed with both the vaccine campaign and vaccine mandates). However, we did NOT mention the vaccine campaign or its mandates, simply hoping the reader could put “two and two” together to arrive at a possible cause.

Then, 2 months later, in late October, we landed another Op-Ed on excess mortality in Newsweek, and this time we were able to mention the vaccine as a possible cause to be investigated as follows:

A thorough investigation of these trends should consider what role official responses to the pandemic may have played. Lockdowns clearly had detrimental effects. And reports of vaccine-related injuries and deaths merit more deliberate, transparent analysis—especially in light of evidence that low-risk populations might have benefited more from COVID-induced natural immunity.

Some immediate steps can be taken to avert further disability and death, such as testing more people for markers of looming liver and kidney disease, susceptibility to blood clots, and heart problems. But until we fully understand what's causing this wave of destruction, we won't know how to end it.

Then, another 2 months later, in December, we landed what was at the time our “boldest” Op-Ed suggesting a link between excess mortality and the vaccine campaign. This time, it was in The Hill, the most read media outlet by politicians and staffers in Washington D.C. It was also our first “center-left” publication in the pandemic. In that Op-Ed, we were able to write about the role of the vaccines (and even mentioned the suppression of early repurposed drug treatments which is my main policy advocacy):

Lockdowns limited access to education, social interaction and health care with documented harm to childhood development, mental health and the economy. Treatment protocols dictated how doctors should deliver COVID care — primarily in hospitals and with expensive medicines — and limited early access to generic drugs that might have helped. 

Vaccines were given to more than 270 million people, among them babies, pregnant women and workers under employer mandates. The therapeutic’s “warp speed,” emergency use authorization must be part of any post-pandemic analysis, in light of more than 1 million reports of possible harm to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System and a new Yale University study validating a chronic post-vaccination syndrome. 

Finally, government officials who sanctioned unprecedented censorship of dissent — enforcing pandemic measures through media pressure — must be called to account. 

Heck, we even mentioned the role of censorship as a contributor to the excess deaths!

Then, a month later, in January, we published an Op-Ed in TrialSite News on the rises in deaths of pregnant women in 2021. Although TrialSite News is popular and well-read by people in the pharmaceutical, health policy and medical industries, it likely does not count as a mainstream media outlet. And it’s not corporate controlled.

To wit, in the above Op-Ed, we were able to take direct aim at both the CDC and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology by temporally associating the massive rise in deaths of pregnant women with their inexplicable, unprecedented recommendation that pregnant women be given an experimental vaccine:

Although the vaccines were still under “emergency use authorization,” which is well short of formal approval, the CDC on April 23, 2021, first encouraged and on August 11, 2021, urged Covid vaccination before, during, and after pregnancy. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists got on board on July 30, 2021.

For the first time in history women were exhorted—some were mandated by employers—to take a novel, minimally tested, injected pharmaceutical even in the sacrosanct first trimester of fetal development. Yet the CDC endorsements referred to research only in third-trimester vaccination. This includes a study of 827 pregnancies that found normal rates of miscarriage but inexplicably included 700 women who were vaccinated after 20 weeks, when fetal losses are not characterized as miscarriages.

One more thing about Trial Site News is that I happen to be friends with the CEO, Daniel O’Connor and he is, in my mind, one of the biggest champions of free speech and free press in the Pandemic. He was one of my co-protesters and speakers at the recent protest rally outside the Supreme Court last month regarding the Biden censorship case. TrialSite reporting on the efficacy of ivermectin and other repurposed drugs was hugely influential in my and other’s work and I believe their work helped save millions of lives. For those interested, can subscribe below, it is a very informative publication:

After that 3rd Op-Ed on excess mortality in January, me and Mary Beth started to take a closer look at the emerging data showing cancers in young people were rising in the wake of the vaccine campaign. When Princess Catherine, aged 42, announced she had been diagnosed with cancer, we were able to publish the below during that “news cycle”:

In that Op-Ed, we were able to “hint” at the role the mRNA vaccines might be playing in this emerging public health crisis:

We need to explore the role of lockdowns, top-down treatment protocols, and — particularly to prime-of-life workers - -vaccines that were often mandated as a condition of employment. There are hints in the medical literature of the potential ways that repeated vaccinations might undermine mechanisms of immunity and perhaps even facilitate cancer growth.

Finally, today we published an Op-Ed which openly analyzed the data and mechanisms which support the mRNA vaccines as the cause of the huge spike in cancer among America’s young. See below and enjoy:

---

*If you value the time and effort I put into researching and writing my posts (and Op-Ed’s), support in the form of paid subscriptions would be appreciated as the hours invested in each post are considerable.

---

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently released findings of seizures in toddlers and pulmonary embolisms in adults that may have been caused by Covid vaccines. Statistical significance aside, the agency concluded that the risk was worth the benefit.

We question this, with more than one million reports of potential vaccine injuries and 18,000 deaths on the government's own, long-trusted and likely undercounted, early warning system. These, the government takes pains to dismiss.

As evidence mounts and a movement of injured people grows, the Biden administration must recognize this growing public health problem. It must cease to stifle debate that has limited what journals print and what the public knows about vaccine consequences.

The harm is only starting to be recognized.

We face a looming threat to young people of, unthinkably but potentially, vaccine-abetted cancer. Driven by new cases, colon cancer rose to the leading cause of cancer death in men under 55, while cervical cancer rose to third in women 30 to 44.  These revelations come from the  2024 American Cancer Society American Cancer Society report, which covers only through 2021. 

Our review of more current CDC data suggest the society’s findings on young cancers are the tip of an emerging iceberg.

Compared to pre-pandemic 2019, cancer deaths in 2023 rose strikingly in 15-to-44-year-olds: Uterine cancer, up 37%; colorectal, up 17%; liver, up 8%, and—suggestive of quickly growing disease—“unspecified” metastatic cancer, up 14%. 

A group of under-the-radar physicians suspected Covid vaccines when in 2021 they noticed many more advanced malignancies. “Turbo cancer,” they called them, a phenomenon that vaccine "fact-checkers" have dismissed.  

But not so fast. 

Even the Cancer Society has said publicly that, beyond more of them, these cancers are different. Colorectal tumors are larger, more aggressive, and more difficult to treat. 

Turbo or not, these numbers and the Cancer Society’s sobering concerns call for a high-level probe that includes Covid vaccines. Here’s why.   

First, the timing. The vaccines were rolled out in December 2020, after abbreviated testing and under emergency-use authorization. While no definitive cancer-vaccine link has been made, an Australian study found a “strong” association between vaccination uptake and unexpectedly high mortality in 2021, using Bradford-Hill criteria to differentiate correlation from causality. 

In the United States, not coincidentally, such “excess” deaths rose sharply in the third quarter of 2021, when Covid-vaccine mandates were issued, covering 100 million workers. Deaths of 25-to-34-year-olds with life insurance—a group with typically low mortality—doubled from the pre-Covid norm, the Society of Actuaries reported. Even the Delta wave did “not fully explain the increase,” it said. 

The question—one that government is not asking--is what did cause these deaths? 

The CDC data we studied showed cancer deaths in 15-to-44-year-olds rising 3% in 2021 from the year before, compared to 1% population-wide. In Japan, researchers recently associated Covid vaccine uptake with “statistically significant” hikes in cancer deaths in 2021 and 2022. They dismissed delayed access to healthcare as the cause, given the size and specificity of the increases in six cancers. 

Studies show that repeated vaccinations potentially undermine mechanisms of immunity—disabling antibodies that fight cancer and even Covid—and perhaps facilitate cancer growth. Rather than cause cancer, the vaccines may “generate a pro-tumorigenic milieu,” researchers posit.   

Beyond this is the recent discovery of foreign DNA fragments in all of 27 vials of Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines in amounts that sometimes exceeded the FDA guideline. Researchers fear the DNA could enter the nucleus of human cells and integrate into the cell genome—a concept documented by gene therapy researchers in 1999.    

The FDA’s own vaccine guidance warns that foreign DNA runs the “risk of tumorigenesis,” enabling “oncogenes” that promote cancer. “DNA integration may result in chromosomal instability,” it states. 

Fortunately, reports of this have been “extremely few,” Nature reported in 2007. But Covid vaccines are different. Like the mRNA in vaccines, the DNA molecules are encased in coated particles that shield them from normal destruction. DNA exposure also increases with each inoculation. 

Phillip Buckhaults, a cancer geneticist at the University of South Carolina who also found DNA in Covid vaccines, told that state’s Senate that the contamination poses a “very real theoretical risk of future cancer in some people.”   

The consequences of Covid vaccines should be scrutinized. This includes reported deaths; under-diagnosed myocarditis in young males, and many published case reports and studies.

Read the rest of the article here:

---

*If you value the time and effort I put into researching and writing my posts, support in the form of paid subscriptions would be appreciated as the hours invested are considerable.

P.S - Proud to report that my book has gained Best Seller status on and off in several countries and is climbing up the U.S Amazon rankings… Link: