News

In 2009, 140 banks failed, and a recent report from financial consulting firm Klaros Group says that hundreds of banks are at risk of going under this year. It’s being billed mostly as a danger for individuals and communities than for the broader economy, but for stressed lenders across America, a string of small bank failures could quite quickly spread into a larger bloodbath — especially in an economy with hot inflation and a feverish addiction to ultra-low interest rates.

Data Source: FDIC.gov

Most at-risk firms are smaller banks representing assets under $10 billion, with a handful of larger regional ones. Some might be able to avoid closing by halting expansion plans or offering fewer services. Others might save themselves by merging with larger banks. But with inflation too high for the Fed to cut now, “higher for longer” interest rate policy is looking increasingly likely, and banks with high exposure to troubled commercial real estate are at particular risk of starting a domino effect of small collapses that lead to bigger ones and bleed into becoming a real estate crisis.

The Klaros report looked at troubled community banks with a large proportion of troubled commercial real estate loans, uninsured deposits, and massive losses on other loans and bonds. These banks are held hostage by higher interest rate policy, and Jerome Powell has already acknowledged that not all of the Fed’s hostages will make it. Fear not, however — as he said at a recent hearing on monetary policy in the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, a few failures won’t turn into an uncontrolled downward spiral:

“There will be bank failures…I think it’s manageable, is the word I would use.”

• Save 40% on our limited edition Brain Force Ultra that’s loaded with proprietary super ingredients!

In other words, banks will fail, but it won’t be enough to trigger a large banking crisis or blow up the broader commercial real estate sector. Powell says the Fed is “working” with these troubled smaller banks that are sitting on loans for empty office and retail buildings, but it’s up to you whether you find his words reassuring:

“There are empty buildings in many major and minor cities…thousands and thousands of people who worked in those buildings are under pressure too…we’re just trying to stay ahead of it on a bank-by-bank basis.”

But interpreting Fed doublespeak is always a delicate endeavor. After all, if he did think 2024-2025 bank failures would be enough to start a domino effect, he wouldn’t say so, or it would cause markets to panic, and the collapse could quickly become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But don’t worry — Powell promises that in any event, the Fed will use taxpayer money to protect the megabanks deemed “systemically important” if its economic meddling leads to a banking crisis. The first bank failure of 2024, First Republic Bank, doesn’t fall into this “too big to fail” category and was absorbed by the larger Fulton Financial. Almost 50% of First Republic’s loans were in commercial real estate.

In all its hubris, the Fed is stuck between preventing a banking crisis and preventing inflation from getting even more out of control. It needs higher rates to reduce inflation, but crucial sectors of the economy that are heavily dependent on lending can’t survive in a higher-rate environment, even if they don’t appear insolvent at first glance.

In a free market, interest rates would be much higher — and “too-big-to-fail” banks wouldn’t exist. Parts of the economy that couldn’t handle higher rates would be cleaned out of the system. Without the free market’s unforgiving but self-regulating mechanisms, where losers are allowed to lose no matter their size, Federal Reserve wizardry locks America into a seemingly endless cycle of death and reincarnation. Recession and bubble, boom and bust. But every cycle coils the spring more tightly as the Fed kicks the can down the road to prevent an all-out failure of the system, and the dollar itself, in the longer term.

Economics trumps sentimentality, and gold’s elevated price has some people raiding the family jewelry box to pay bills. “Young people are not wearing grandma’s jewels. Most of the young people, they want an Apple watch. They don’t want a pocket watch,” Tobina Kahn, president of House of Kahn Estate Jewelers told Bloomberg. “Sentimental is now out the door.”

When times are tough, treasures change hands, the late Burt Blumert, once a gold dealer and Mises Institute Board Chairman, used to say. “Prices are high, and I need cash,” Branden Sabino, a thirty-year-old information technology worker said, adding that with the cost of rent, groceries, and car insurance rising, he doesn’t have any savings. He sold a gold necklace and a gold ring to King Gold and Pawn on Avenue 5 in Brooklyn. “People are using gold as an ATM they never had,” said store owner Gene Furman.

At King Gold, fifty-five-year-old Mirsa Vijil pawned a bracelet to pay her gas bill. “Gold is high,” she said, adding she’d never pawned her jewelry before but will do it again if she needs to.

Adrian Ash, director of research at online gold investment service BullionVault says there is twice as much selling as a year ago on BullionVault’s platform. “People are very happy to take this price.”

“It’s very busy and we are getting more calls than ever before about clients wanting to bring in their jewels,” Kahn said. “I’m telling the clients to bring them in now, as we are at unprecedented levels.”

So while there is plenty of liquidating to pay the bills, demand at the United States Mint is tepid, with sales in March the worst since 2019 for its American Eagle gold coin.

It turns out more than a few of those well-publicized Costco gold bar buyers are having trouble selling them. The bars, not being American Eagles or other similar gold coins, are not as liquid, given that the seller, Costco, will not buy them back. The Wall Street Journal reports, thirty-three-year old Adam Xi called five different gold dealers to get a price he would accept for the gold bar he bought at Costco in October.

He was offered $200 less by one dealer than the $2,000 he had paid. But he found a Philadelphia coin dealer near his home willing to pay $1,960, or twenty dollars under market price.

Mr. Xi has learned, or should have learned, that buying gold to turn a quick profit is a fantasy. His plan was to rack up credit-card points buying the gold and then quickly resell it for a profit.

Buyers can expect their gold to immediately lose around 5 percent of its value, according to Tom Graff, chief investment officer at the wealth advising company Facet. One pays a premium to buy and pays fees to sell. “You need a holding period that’s long enough to overwhelm that cost,” said Graff.

Luke Greib told the Wall Street Journal that he sold a one-ounce Credit Suisse bar on a Reddit page dedicated to trading precious metals to avoid taxes and fees. Buying physical gold is purchasing insurance against monetary mischief by the Federal Reserve, not to earn a profit via a quick flip.

Perhaps it’s hard to imagine currency destruction so devastating that your gold would serve as not only a store of value but a medium of exchange. Peter C. Earle explains in a piece for the American Institute for Economic Research, “During the peak of its 2008 hyperinflation, [Zimbabwe] experienced a catastrophic economic downturn, characterized by the issuance of billion—and trillion-dollar banknotes that were, despite their nominal enormity, virtually worthless.”

Dr. Earle writes that twenty-eight years of inflation “topped a total 231 million percent” and “the ZWD was demonetized in 2009.” The government is making its sixth attempt at a new currency, Zimbabwe gold (ZiG). “ZiG is there to stay forever,” said Vice President Constantino Chiwenga. “This bold step symbolizes government’s unwavering commitment to the de-dollarization program premised on fiscal discipline, monetary prudence and economic revitalization.”

Reportedly, ZiG “is backed by a basket of precious metals including about 2.5 tons of gold along with $100 million of foreign currency reserves held by the central bank.” As always, the Zimbabwe authorities are already blaming speculators for price increases. “Speculators should cease,” Chiwenga said. “Behave, or you get shut down or we lock you up.”

Dr. Earle has his doubts about whether the Zimbabwean authorities will maintain the ZiG backing with the required rigor. While he hopes for success, “Without fundamental changes guaranteeing private property protection, pro-market reforms, and safeguards against corruption, though, the ZiG is likely to retrace the unfortunate steps of its predecessors.”

The reason to buy and hold gold is just in case the Federal Reserve goes the way of Zimbabwe.

Speaking with News Nation this week, former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield called for the federal government to declassify its COVID-19 documents and warned Americans Bird Flu could be the next pandemic to wreak havoc on society.

Dr. Redfield noted he’s seen the classified information, telling viewers, “I’m anxious to see it all declassified.”

Hinting at what the documents would reveal, the doctor said, “Obviously, there’s geopolitical reasons that they’re keeping this classified. I don’t think it’s warranted. It should be declassified.”

Redfield also said it’s “obvious” that COVID-19 was “educated,” or taught how to infect humans via gain-of-function research, by scientists at the Wuhan lab.

Regarding gain-of-function, the doctor explained he’s been calling for a moratorium on the research for years.

“I think it puts our world at great risk. We have a risk of natural spillover, but there is a species barrier. I’m obviously most worried about Bird Flu. Right now, it takes five amino acid change for it to be effectively infecting humans. That’s a pretty heavy species barrier, but this virus is already now in 26 mammal species, as you saw most recently in cattle. But in the laboratory, I could make it highly infectious for humans in months. Because it’s been published which five amino acids I need to change, and so I don’t think that research should be done. That’s the real threat, that’s the real biosecurity threat that these university labs are doing bio-experiments that are INTENTIONALLY modifying viruses – and Bird Flu I think is going to be the cause of the great pandemic – where they are teaching these viruses to be more infectious for humans.“

This alarming warning should send shockwaves across the world, and every American should be calling their elected officials to demand an end to gain-of-function research.

In 2021, following the tragic murder of David Amess MP, the UK legacy media reported that Ali Harbi Ali, the man subsequently convicted of murdering Mr Amess, was quite possibly radicalised online:

Social media users could face a ban on anonymous accounts, as home secretary Priti Patel steps up action to tackle radicalisation in the wake of the murder of MP David Amess. [. . .] Police questioning Ali Harbi Ali on suspicion of terrorism offences are understood to be investigating the possibility that the 25-year-old [. . .] was radicalised by material found on the internet and social media networks during lockdown.

The police had already stated that the crime was being investigated as a terrorist incident. They reported a potential motive of Islamist extremism.

Ali Harbi Ali had been known to the UK government’s Prevent counter-radicalisation program for seven years, prior to murdering Mr Amess. In 2014 Ali Harbi Ali was referred to the Channel counter-terrorism programme, a wing of Prevent reserved for the most radical youths. A referral to Channel can only have come from the UK Police. The official guidance for a Channel referral states:

It is likely, therefore, that Ali Harbi Abedi was known to the UK government, counter-terrorism police and the intelligence agencies. Yet we are told, having been flagged as among the most concerning of all Prevent subjects, for some seemingly inexplicable reason, Ali Harbi Ali was not known to the intelligence agencies. To date, there has been no explanation for this, frankly, implausible claim.

Following his conviction, the UK legacy media reported that Ali Harbi Ali was an example of “textbook radicalisation.” This was a quite extraordinary claim because there is no such thing as “textbook radicalisation.”

Ali Harbi Ali said that he had watched ISIS propaganda videos online. This was also highlighted at his trial. Consequently, the BBC reported:

What is the Radicalisation Process?

In 2016, the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson issued a report to inform potential UN strategies to counter extremism and terrorism. Emmerson reported there was neither an agreed-upon definition of “extremism” nor any single cogent explanation of the “radicalisation” process:

[M]any programmes directed at radicalisation [are] based on a simplistic understanding of the process as a fixed trajectory to violent extremism with identifiable markers along the way. [. . .] There is no authoritative statistical data on the pathways towards individual radicalisation.

This was followed, in 2017, with the publication of “Countering Domestic Extremism” by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The NAS report stated that domestic “violence and violent extremist ideologies” were eventually adopted by a small minority of people as the result of a complex and poorly understood “radicalisation” process.

According to the NAS, there were numerous contributory factors to an individual’s apparent radicalisation, including sociopolitical and economic factors, personality traits, psychological influences, traumatic life experiences and so on. Precisely how these elements combined, and why some people were radicalised, while the majority who experienced the same weren’t, remained unknown:

No single shared motivator for violent extremism has been found, but the sum of several could provide a strong foundation for understanding

In July 2018, researcher team from from Deakin University in Australia largely corroborated Emmerson’s and NAS’ findings. Adding some further detail and research, their peer-reviewed article, “The 3 P’s of Radicalisation,” was based upon an meta-analysis of all the available academic literature on the radicalisation. They identified three broad drivers that could potentially lead someone toward violent extremism. They called these Push, Pull, and Personal factors.

Push factors are created by the individuals perception of their social or political environment. Awareness of things likes state repression, structural deprivation, poverty, and injustice can lead to resentment and anger. Pull factors are the elements of extremism that appeal to the individual. This might include an ideological commitment, a group identity and sense of belonging, finding a purpose, promises of justice, eternal glory, etc. Personal factors are the aspects of an individual’s personality that may predispose them to being more vulnerable to Push or Pull influences. For example, mental health problems or illness, individual characteristics, their reaction to life experiences and more.

Currently, the UN cites it’s own report—Journey To Extremism in Africa—as “the most extensive study yet on what drives people to violent extremism.” Building on the work we’ve just discussed, the report concluded that radicalisation is the product of numerous factors that combine to lead an individual down a path to extremism and possible violence.

The UN stated:

We know the drivers and enablers of violent extremism are multiple, complex and context specific, while having religious, ideological, political, economic and historical dimensions. They defy easy analysis, and understanding of the phenomenon remains incomplete.

The BBC report of “textbook radicalisation” was total rubbish. Everything we know about the radicalisation process reveals a convoluted interplay between social, economic, political, cultural and personal factors. These factors, which “defy easy analysis,” may combine to lead someone toward violent extremism and potentially terrorism. In the overwhelming majority of cases they do not.

It is extremely difficult to predict which individual’s may be radicalised. Millions of people experience all of the Push, Pull and Personal contributory factors and only a minuscule minority turn to extremism and violence.

We can say that watching videos and hanging around in online chat groups may be part of the radicalisation process but, absent all the other contributory elements, in no way is it reasonable to claim that anyone becomes a terrorist simply because they are “radicalised online.” The suggestion is absurd.

This absurdity was emphasised by the UN in its June 2023 publication of its report “Prevention of Violent Extremism.” The UN reported:

[. . .] deaths from terrorist activity have fallen considerably worldwide in recent years.

During the same period global internet use had increased by 45%, from 3.7 billion people in 2018 to 5.4 billion in 2023. Quite clearly, if there is a correlation between internet use and terrorism—doubtful—it’s an inverse one.

Adopting the precautionary principle we should perhaps be encouraging more people to have more access to a wider range of online information sources. There is a remote, but possible chance that this assists, in some unknown way, the reduction of violent extremism and deters the tiny minority from turning toward terrorism.

Exploiting the Online Radicalisation Myth

State propagandists, like the BBC’s Marianna Spring, have been spreading disinformation about online radicalisation for some time. They have been doing this to deceive the public into thinking that government legislation, such as the Online Safety Act (OSA), will tackle the mythical problem of online radicalisation.

In a January 2024 article she titled “Young Britons exposed to online radicalisation following Hamas attack,” Marianna Spring wrote:

It is a spike in hate that leaves young Britons increasingly exposed to radicalisation by algorithm. [. . .] Algorithms are recommendation systems that promote new content to a user based on posts they engage with. That means they can drive some people to more extreme ideas.

Building on her absurd Lord Haw-Haw level tripe, in reference to the work of the UK Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU) Spring added:

The focus is on terrorism-related content that could lead to violence offline or risk radicalising other people into terror ideologies on social media.

Building on this abject nonsense Spring continued:

So what about all of the hate that sits in the middle? It’s not extreme enough to be illegal, but it still poisons the public discourse and risks pushing some people further towards extremes. [. . .] Responsibility for dealing with hateful posts – as of now – lies with the social media companies. It also lies, to some extent, with policy makers looking to regulate the sites, and users themselves. New legislation like the Online Safety Act does force the social media companies to take responsibility for illegal content, too.

This blurring of definitions from “terrorist” to “hate” to “hateful posts” to “extremes” was a meaningless slurry of specious drivel designed to convince the public that terrorists become terrorists because they watch YouTube videos or are influenced by the “hurty words” they read and share on social media. None of which was true.

Spring’s evident purpose was to lend some credibility to the State’s legislative push to silence all dissent online and censor legitimate public opinion. Spring spun the idea, that online radicalisation exists, to encourage people to give away their essential democratic rights in order to stay safe.

This moronic argument convinced the clueless puppeticians—we keep electing to Parliament by mistake—to pass the Online Safety Act into law in October 2023. They were told that it would protect children and adults from “harm”:

The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to [. . .] terrorism.

Imagining this is what the Online Safety Act was supposed to protect adults from, the OSA received its Royal assent. Now that we have it on the statute books all the anti-democratic oppression it contains has been let loose.

The UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA) creates the offence of “sending false information intended to cause non-trivial harm.” Quite what “non-trivial harm” is supposed to mean isn’t entirely clear. The UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) certainly doesn’t understand it:

Section 179(1) OSA 2023 creates a summary offence of sending false communications. The offence is committed if [. . .], at the time of sending it, the person intended the message, or the information in it, to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience. [. . .] Non-trivial psychological or physical harm is not defined  [. . .]. Prosecutors should be clear when making a charging decision about what the evidence is concerning the suspect’s intention and how what was intended was not “trivial”, and why. Note that there is no requirement that such harm should in fact be caused, only that it be intended.

Its seems the legal profession can’t quite grasp the horrific implications of the new punishable offence the UK State has created. Perhaps because they still imagine they serve a democracy. There’s no need for any confusion. The UK State has been quite clear about the nature of its dictatorship:

These new criminal offences will protect people from a wide range of abuse and harm online, including [. . .] sending fake news that aims to cause non-trivial physical or psychological harm.

“Fake news” is whatever the State, the Establishment and their “epistemic authorities” say it is. what constitutes “non-trivial harm” is also an entirely subjective judgement for the State. The Online Safety regulator, Ofcom, will decree the truth and the State will punish those who dare to contradict its official proclamations based upon whatever the Secretary of State tells Ofcom to outlaw.

If you think this sounds like “thought crime,” you are right. That is precisely what it is.

The idea that the OSA has something to do with protecting children and deterring people from online radicalisation was a sales pitch. Propagandists like the BBC’s Marianna Spring were dispatched to make the ridiculous arguments to deceive the public into believing their own speech needs to be regulated by the State.

The State is Completely Disinterested In Terrorist Content Online

Inciting violence, crime or promoting terrorism, sharing child porn and the online paedophile grooming of children has been illegal in the UK for many years. The Online Safety Act adds absolutely nothing to existing laws. The problem has never been insufficient law it has been insufficient enforcement.

In addition, it couldn’t be more obvious that the UK State and its propagandists are not in the least bit interested about tackling alleged “online radicalisation.” Ii is revealed in Marianna Spring’s article (referenced above) she reportedly got her wacky ideas about online radicalisation from CTIRU team members.

The CTIRU was set up in 2010 to remove “unlawful terrorist material” from the Internet. It makes formal requests to social media and hosting companies to take down material deemed to be terrorist related. If online radicalisation were a thing, which it isn’t, the CTIRU has been tasked for 14 years with stopping it. It doesn’t appear to have done anything at all.

The group Jabhat Fateh al Sham (JFS) was formerly known as the Al-Nusra Front or Jabhat al-Nusra (alias al-Qaeda in Syria, or al-Qaeda in the Levant). It subsequently merged with Ansar al-Din Front, Jaysh al-Sunna, Liwa al-Haqq, and the Nour al–Din al-Zenki Movement to form Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), or ‘Levant Liberation Front’.

HTS’ objective is to create an Islamic state in the Levant. According to the UK Government’s listing of proscribed terrorist groups:

The government laid Orders, in July 2013, December 2016 and May 2017, which provided that the “al-Nusrah Front (ANF)”, “Jabhat al-Nusrah li-ahl al Sham”, “Jabhat Fatah al-Sham” and “Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham” should be treated as alternative names for the organisation which is already proscribed under the name Al Qa’ida.

HTS, then, is officially defined as Al-Qa’ida. It is the same group supposedly responsible for 9/11.

In 2016, six years after the CTIRU was formed, BBC Newsnight interviewed Al-Qa’ida’s Director of Foreign Media Relations, Mostafa Mahamed, about the ambitions of Al-Qa’ida. The BBC gave him ample airtime to explain howAl-Qa’ida was leading the fight against the elected Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. The BBC claimed that JFS—now HTS—had formerly split from Al-Qa’ida. Probably attempting to justify its promotion of a proscribed terrorist organisation. The UK Government does not share the BBC appraisal but its Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit doesn’t appear to be overly fussed.

The BBC HTS promo video is still available to watch on YouTube. Alternatively, you could watch a JFS promotional video, or perhaps spend less than a minute searching YouTube to find the slew of videos it provides promoting proscribed Islamist terrorist groups.

You can still watch Channel 4’s in-depth 2016 report extolling the heroics of the Nour al-Din al-Zenki terrorists. This is the group that publicly beheaded a twelve-year-old boy. In fact, Channel 4 promoted those directly responsible for the despicable crime. Channel 4 said the child murderers had won a “famous victory”.

When it was pointed out that these people decapitate children, the BBC leapt to their defence, pointing out that the child was probably a combatant. The BBC didn’t ask its terrorist interviewee, Mostafa Mahamed, whether he was against murdering children in principle.

Such videos have been available online for years and have been shared liberally by mainstream media outlets such as Al-Jazeera, Channel 4, the BBC, AP, France24 and many others. This all seems rather odd, because in 2018, then CTIRU Commander Clarke Jarrett said:

It’s vital that if the public see something online they think could be terrorist-related, that they ACT and flag it up to us. Our Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU) has specialist officers who not only take action to get content removed, but also increasingly, are in a position to look at those behind online content — which is leading to more and more investigations.

What does CTIRU mean by “terrorist-related” if not promotional videos made by terrorist organisations? How much investigation is needed to “take down” BBC interviews with Al-Qa’ida spokesmen, and to prosecute those who made and broadcast it?

Why aren’t the hundreds, if not thousands, of terrorist promos currently available via Google services deemed unlawful? Are only some terrorist groups unlawful while others are fine? Why are some terrorists promoted and others not?

The truth is the whole thing is a monumental sham. Not only is online radicalisation a myth the State couldn’t care less about terrorist promotional material. The online radicalisation myth has been punted by propagandists for one reason only. To convince you to submit to online censorship.

Article first published by UK Column. Please note: article originally edited by UK Column.

The post The Myth of Online Radicalisation appeared first on Iain Davis.

A recent medical study documented how workers at the Cleveland Clinic who received the Covid vaccination garnered a low level of protection against the virus, yet attained a high level of Covid illness.

“The 2023-2024 formula COVID-19 vaccine given to working-aged adults afforded a low level of protection against the JN.1 lineage of SARS-CoV-2, but a higher number of prior vaccine doses was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19,” the study said in the ‘Conclusion’ section.

The paper also discussed how vaccine immunity is weaker than natural immunity and how vaccines can lead to a higher risk of infection in the future.

“Consistent with similar findings in many prior studies [3,8,10,12,18–20], a higher number of prior vaccine doses was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19. The exact reason for this finding is not clear. It is possible that this may be related to the fact that vaccine-induced immunity is weaker and less durable than natural immunity,” the study said in the ‘Discussion’ section. “So, although somewhat protective in the short term, vaccination may increase risk of future infection because the act of vaccination prevents the occurrence of a more immunogenic event. Thus, the short-term protection provided by a COVID-19 vaccine comes with a risk of increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in the future.”

The study claimed that the early Covid vaccination had a high rate of effectiveness against infection, yet failed to mention that many who died in the hospitals were wrongfully marked as a Covid death in order to inflate the Covid death numbers, and most had co-morbidities.

Interestingly, the study also discussed how natural immunity took hold and prevented infection, and so because of that a new Covid vaccine was developed in order to maintain the usefulness of vaccination over natural immunity.

“Although the original messenger RNA (mRNA) Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines were highly effective early in the pandemic [1,2], their effectiveness decreased as the causative agent of COVID-19, the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV- 2) virus, evolved over time and new variants emerged. Concurrently, the human population developed an increasing level of herd immunity, resulting in a decrease in the number of people who got infected and a substantial decline in the occurrence of severe illness among those who got infected. Newer vaccines were developed in an attempt to overcome diminishing vaccine effectiveness,” the study said in the ‘Introduction’ section.

The study also laid out how once a vaccine for a specific Covid lineage was developed and rolled out, the virus had already mutated into a new variant.

“Moderna TX Inc. and Pfizer-BioNTech Inc. updated their mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (the updated ones designated as the 2023-2024 formulation) to more closely target circulating variants. Both of these vaccines encoded the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant lineage XBB.1.5 (Omicron XBB.1.5) [4]. These updated vaccines were approved for emergency use by the FDA on 11 September 2023 [5], and the next day the CDC recommended them for everyone 6 months and older [6]. However, by the time these vaccines became available to the public the XBB lineages were already no longer the dominant circulating strains in many parts of the USA, having been supplanted by the HV.1, EG.5, and other lineages [7],” the study said in the ‘Introduction’ section.

Other studies showed that Covid vaccination protection is short-lived and moderate in strength.

The Covid shots are known to increase in lethality after repeated dose, cause miscarriages as well as cause deadly headaches, seizures and heart inflammation.

The CDC recommends all Americans receive their Covid shot, and that young children get extra.

BOOM! Covid Shot Causes Highest Kill Rate In History – Warns Top Doctor

Footage going viral online shows the moment a group of illegal migrants attacked Italian citizens in Rome.

The “asylum seekers” can be seen smashing a motorcycle, throwing glass bottles and starting physical fights with locals.

The importation of Third World “refugees” into Western nations is part of the UN Replacement Migration strategy to ultimately collapse those countries so the globalists can consolidate their power.

Learn more about the diabolical scheme in the epic video below: