For nearly two years, many of us have been trying to spread the truth about the Covid jabs. We were told they are effective. They are not. We were told they are safe. They are not. But anyone who tried to share these truths were hit by cancel culture at the least and deplatformed at worst. We know this personally as we were hit by massive censorship multiple times, including losing a popular YouTube channel that I’d had since 2009.
For the last month or so, the restrictions against speaking the truth regarding Covid jabs have been relieved a bit. Big Tech platforms have changed their rules to allow for some claims about the injections they didn’t allow last month. Corporate media is even talking about adverse reactions from time to time. The CDC and FDA have made changes to their websites, removing certain claims such as the spike proteins are short-term and are removed from the bloodstream quickly. They aren’t.
While many of us have been cheering these minor victories, there are two reasons to be very upset and at least a little concerned. First, it’s like they closed the stable door after the horse had bolted. Millions, perhaps tens of millions of Americans have been jabbed a varying number of times who definitely would NOT have if there were no mandates or if the truth was allowed to reach them. I’m not one to make excuses for people; the information was out there and nobody was forced to take the shots at gunpoint. People made choices, but it would have been nice if the “normies” were able to see the information we were putting out there.
The second concern is far greater. What’s next? That’s the real question we should be asking because this isn’t a good sign. They could continue to gaslight and lie through their teeth about the jabs almost indefinitely. As long as everyone in government, corporate media, Big Tech, and Big Pharma kept echoing the same false narrative, they could have continued to suspend disbelief in the “safe and effective” jabs for at least another couple of years. Why are they suddenly and uniformly creeping the truth out there? Do they have something else planned?
I believe they do. On today’s episode of America First Report, I explained why I believe they have something new planned for us. I went over the article by Jennifer Marfulis and Joe Wang from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times (below) the represents arguably the most important study to date regarding the jabs. It’s important because it’s actually being reported. There are other more shocking jab-debunking studies out there, but this one is actually being talked about by corporate media which is a new development.
Are they planning on letting the cat out of the bag and admitting the jabs are causing real damage to people? That’s possible, especially if they intend to pin it all on Donald Trump and Operation Warp Speed. “We were rushed to get it out before the election,” they’ll say.
It would also be useful for them to do this if they have a way to “repair” the damage with NEW jabs. I know what you’re thinking. Who will trust the people who caused the problem to offer a solution that requires more shots? Unfortunately, we’ll likely be shocked at how many will rush to get essentially inoculated and “treated” for the original jabs by the same people who did the harm in the first place.
Whatever they have planned, remember two things. First, they will only admit the truth if they believe doing so will further their long-term plans. Second, those who have been jabbed or those who are regularly exposed to people who have been jabbed should strongly consider getting ZDtox by my good friend, the late Dr. Vladimir Zelenko. Here’s the article from The Epoch Times that I covered on the show…
‘Unethical’ and up to 98 Times Worse Than the Disease: Top Scientists Publish Paradigm-Shifting Study About COVID-19 Vaccines
A team of nine experts from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and other top universities has published paradigm-shifting research about the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines and why mandating vaccines for college students is unethical.
This 50-page study, which was published on The Social Science Research Network at the end of August, analyzed CDC and industry-sponsored data on vaccine adverse events, and concluded that mandates for COVID-19 boosters for young people may cause 18 to 98 actual serious adverse events for each COVID-19 infection-related hospitalization theoretically prevented.
The paper is co-authored by Dr. Stefan Baral, an epidemiology professor at Johns Hopkins University; surgeon Martin Adel Makary, M.D., a professor at Johns Hopkins known for his books exposing medical malfeasance, including “Unaccountable: What Hospitals Won’t Tell You and How Transparency Can Revolutionize Heath Care”; and Dr. Vinayak Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist, who is a professor in the UCSF Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, as well as the author of over 350 academic and peer-reviewed articles.
But among this team of high-profile international experts who authored this paper, perhaps the most notable is Salmaan Keshavjee, M.D., Ph.D., current Director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Global Health Delivery, and professor of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Keshavjee has also worked extensively with Partners In Health, a Boston-based non-profit co-founded by the late Dr. Paul Farmer, on treating drug-resistant tuberculosis, according to his online biography.
Risking Disenrollment
As the study pointed out, students at universities in America, Canada, and Mexico are being told they must have a third dose of the vaccines against COVID-19 or be disenrolled. Unvaccinated high school students who are just starting college are also being told the COVID-19 vaccines are “mandatory” for attendance.
These mandates are widespread. There are currently 15 states which continue to honor philosophical (personal belief) exemptions, and 44 states and Washington, D.C. allow religious exemptions to vaccines. But even in these states, private universities are telling parents they will not accept state-recognized vaccine exemptions.
Based on personal interviews with some half a dozen families, The Epoch Times has learned that administrators at some colleges and universities are informing students that they have their own university-employed medical teams to scrutinize the medical exemptions submitted by students and signed by private doctors. These doctors, families are being told, will decide whether the health reasons given are medically valid.
5 Ethical Arguments Against Mandated Boosters
Though rarely reported on in the mainstream media, COVID-19 vaccine boosters have been generating a lot of controversy.
While some countries are quietly compensating people for devastating vaccine injuries, and other countries are limiting COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, the United States is now recommending children 12 and older get Pfizer-BioNTech’s Omicron-specific booster, and young adults over the age of 18 get Moderna’s updated shot.
At the same time, public health authorities in Canada are suggesting Canadians will need COVID-19 vaccines every 90 days.
Against a backdrop of confusing and often changing public health recommendations and booster fatigue, the authors of this new paper argue that university booster mandates are unethical. They give five specific reasons for this bold claim:
- Lack of policymaking transparency. The scientists pointed out that no formal and scientifically rigorous risk-benefit analysis of whether boosters are helpful in preventing severe infections and hospitalizations exists for young adults.
- Expected harm. A look at the currently available data shows that mandates will result in what the authors call a “net expected harm” to young people. This expected harm will exceed the potential benefit from the boosters.
- Lack of efficacy. The vaccines have not effectively prevented transmission of COVID-19. Given how poorly they work—the authors call this “modest and transient effectiveness”—the expected harms caused by the boosters likely outweigh any benefits to public health.
- No recourse for vaccine-injured young adults. Forcing vaccination as a prerequisite to attend college is especially problematic because young people injured by these vaccines will likely not be able to receive compensation for these injuries.
- Harm to society. Mandates, the authors insisted, ostracize unvaccinated young adults, excluding them from education and university employment opportunities. Coerced vaccination entails “major infringements to free choice of occupation and freedom of association,” the scientists wrote, especially when “mandates are not supported by compelling public health justification.”
The consequences of non-compliance include being unenrolled, losing internet privileges, losing access to the gym and other athletic facilities, and being kicked out of campus housing, among other things. These punitive approaches, according to the authors, have resulted in unnecessary psychosocial stress, reputation damage, loss of income, and fear of being deported, to name just a few.
22,000 to 30,000 Previously Unaffected Young Adults Must be Vaccinated to Prevent Just 1 Hospitalization
The lack of effectiveness of the vaccines is a major concern to these researchers. Based on their analysis of the public data provided to the CDC, they estimated that between 22,000 and 30,000 previously uninfected young adults would need to be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent just a single hospitalization.
However, this estimate does not take into account the protection conferred by a previous infection. So, the authors insisted, “this should be considered a conservative and optimistic assessment of benefit.”
In other words, the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 are essentially useless.
Mandated Booster Shots Cause More Harm Than Good
But the documented lack of efficacy is only part of the problem. The researchers further found that per every one COVID-19 hospitalization prevented in young adults who had not previously been infected with COVID-19, the data show that 18 to 98 “serious adverse events” will be caused by the vaccinations themselves.
These events include up to three times as many booster-associated myocarditis in young men than hospitalizations prevented, and as many as 3,234 cases of other side effects so serious that they interfere with normal daily activities.
At a regional hospital in South Carolina, the desk clerk sported a button that read: “I’m Vaccinated Against COVID-19” with a big black check mark on it.
“What about the boosters?” a hospital visitor asked. “It’s starting to seem like we need too many shots.”
“It does seem like a lot,” the clerk agreed. “It’s hard to know what to do.” But she did have some advice for the visitor: “Just keep reading and educating yourself, so you can make an informed decision.”
This new paper is essential reading for anyone trying to decide if they need more vaccines. The authors concluded their study with a call to action. Policymakers must stop mandates for young adults immediately, be sure that those who have already been injured by these vaccines are compensated for the suffering caused by mandates, and openly conduct and share the results of risk-benefit analyses of the vaccines for various age groups.
These measures are necessary, the authors argued, to “begin what will be a long process of rebuilding trust in public health.”
May the Force Be With Brave Scientists
The two co-first authors, Dr. Kevin Bardosh and Dr. Allison Krug, both thanked their families for supporting them to “publicly debate Covid-19 vaccine mandates” in the acknowledgments section of the paper.
As we wrote in May, an increasing number of scientists and medical doctors are speaking out about the dubious efficacy and disturbing safety issues surrounding theses fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccines. They do so fully aware of the personal and professional risks involved. They deserve our encouragement and support.
Bypass Big Tech Censors
Why Bullion Beats Numismatics and Collectible for Your Safe or IRA
Precious metals continue to attract Americans seeking reliable ways to protect their wealth amid inflation, geopolitical risks, and stock market swings. Whether stored in a home safe or held inside a self-directed IRA, physical gold and silver deliver tangible value that paper or digital assets often lack. Yet investors must choose carefully between bullion—pure bars and coins valued mainly for their metal content—and numismatics or collectibles, where rarity, history, and collector demand heavily influence pricing.
Advisor Bullion serves as a dependable source for straightforward, high-quality bullion. The company specializes in physical gold, silver, platinum, and palladium, emphasizing transparent pricing and products that deliver maximum metal content for every dollar spent. This approach makes it ideal for both personal holdings and retirement accounts.
Bullion consists of refined precious metals in standard forms like one-ounce coins (American Gold Eagles, Silver Eagles, Canadian Maple Leafs) or bars. Their value tracks closely to the current spot price of the metal. A typical gold bullion coin trades near the live gold spot price plus a small premium. This structure keeps costs clear and predictable.
Numismatic coins and collectibles add substantial value from factors such as age, rarity, minting errors, or historical significance. A pre-1933 U.S. gold coin or graded proof piece can carry premiums of 30%, 50%, or even 200% above melt value. While this appeals to hobbyists, it creates complexity. Pricing depends on subjective grading, collector trends, and auction results instead of daily spot prices.
For investors focused on wealth preservation and retirement security rather than building a collection, bullion often delivers better results.
Lower Costs and Better Liquidity for Home Storage
When keeping metals in a home safe or private vault, liquidity and efficiency count. Bullion offers clear benefits:
- You acquire more actual gold or silver per dollar invested. Numismatics divert a large share of your money into rarity premiums and massive sales commission, reducing your metal exposure.
- Selling bullion involves tight bid-ask spreads, so you recover nearly full spot value with minimal fees. Collectibles require finding the right buyer and may sell at a discount if demand for that specific item weakens.
- Bullion prices remain transparent and update with global spot markets. You can track gold near current levels or silver accordingly and know exactly where your holdings stand. Numismatic values are priced by the Gold IRA companies with hefty margins applied.
- Standardized coins and bars store efficiently and divide easily for partial sales. Rare coins often need protective slabs and controlled conditions, adding hassle and expense.
- Bullion enjoys worldwide acceptance. A 1-oz Gold Maple Leaf or Silver Eagle sells quickly to dealers anywhere. Niche numismatic pieces may appeal only to limited buyers, slowing liquidation when speed matters.
In times when quick access to value becomes important, bullion’s simplicity stands out.
Stronger Fit for Precious Metals IRAs
Precious metals IRAs continue gaining traction as investors diversify retirement portfolios beyond stocks and bonds. IRS rules permit certain bullion products in self-directed IRAs if they meet purity standards (.995 fine for gold, .999 for silver) and are held by an approved custodian. Eligible items include American Gold and Silver Eagles plus many generic bars and rounds from recognized mints.
Numismatic and most collectible coins generally face heavy scrutiny from custodians due to valuation disputes and elevated markups. These higher premiums mean less actual metal ends up working inside the account.
Bullion avoids these issues. Its value links directly to verifiable spot prices, which simplifies reporting and lowers the risk of regulatory challenges. More of your IRA contribution purchases real metal instead of dealer profits or speculative upside. Over time, owning additional ounces that appreciate with the metal itself can create meaningful outperformance compared with high-premium alternatives that deliver fewer ounces.
Regulatory guidance from the CFTC and state securities offices repeatedly cautions against aggressive sales of expensive numismatics or “semi-numismatic” coins for IRAs. For retirement planning, transparent bullion from established providers reduces risk and aligns better with long-term goals.
How to Get Started with Bullion
Begin by clarifying your goals. Are you protecting savings in a safe, or moving part of a retirement account into a precious metals IRA? Focus on the number of ounces you can acquire at current prices rather than chasing marked-up collectibles.
Diversify sensibly: use gold for core preservation and silver for its blend of industrial and monetary qualities. Mix coins for easier divisibility with bars for lower per-ounce costs on larger buys. Arrange secure storage—whether at home with proper insurance or through professional facilities.
As economic uncertainties linger and faith in conventional assets erodes, bullion continues proving its worth as a dependable store of value. Its direct approach avoids the hype that sometimes surrounds collectible markets and keeps the focus on the metal itself.
For investors prepared to strengthen their portfolios, Advisor Bullion supplies the expertise and selection needed to acquire high-quality bullion efficiently. Whether building personal holdings or integrating metals into an IRA, their emphasis on transparent, investment-grade products helps secure more ounces today that support greater financial security tomorrow. In a complicated financial landscape, bullion’s clarity and reliability make it the smarter foundation for protecting what matters most.
