top of page
  • Writer's pictureAletheia

"The One You're Offered"

According to Wisconsin State Statute 251.05 (2) (a) even the lowest classified local health department formed here “shall provide at least surveillance, investigation, control, and prevention of communicable diseases, other disease prevention, health promotion and human health hazard control.” [emphasis my own] One can debate the wisdom of the State Legislature's creation and structuring of public health departments, but Wisconsin law grants them an official mission and expects them to fulfill it.

For nearly four years, now, PHMDC personnel have repeatedly manipulated the presentation of COVID data (see here, here, and here, for example), unnecessarily terrifying county residents. They have imposed a regime of control via emergency orders that have harmed many while protecting no one. And they have unabashedly pushed Big Pharma’s experimental COVID “cures,” supported by zero sound science or solid data whatsoever. In fact, this last item continues to this very day. PHMDC behaves as if not a single negative revelation has been made about the COVID jabs, that it’s still January of 2021, when the shots were, as we now know, falsely advertised as “completely safe and effective.” Dane Undivided has already pointed out serious problems with PHMDC’s data, decision-making, and leadership. Moreover, we’ve demonstrated that the agency has a habit of suppressing real data…and the truth. See here, here, here, and here, for starters. Frankly, it’s grown increasingly difficult to attribute the agency’s choices to mere incompetence. It’s clearer every day that the drive to align with key agendas has led to ongoing, gross ethical violations and dereliction of duty.

I plan to examine several examples along these lines over the coming weeks that together start to paint a deeply troubling picture. Today, let’s start with just one…

"Which Vaccine Should I Get?"

On March 3rd, 2021, PHMDC published a blog post entitled: “Which Vaccine Should I Get? The One You’re Offered.”

The post came early in the rollout of the COVID-19 shots. In fact, up to that point—as seen in this graphic from PHMDC’s February 5th blog post—just two populations had been approved to receive the shots.

Medical personnel and other frontline workers were among “the chosen few.” But the big push was supposedly to protect the 65+ crowd. Remember: the data all showed that Grandpa and Grandma were most in harm’s way, that they needed immediate shielding. In fact, such protection was used to justify both masking and lockdowns, the first dubious measures implemented against the COVID virus. So, of course, the elderly were also at the front of the line for new, “limited supply,” miracle COVID therapeutics.

With the official narratives surrounding COVID and the COVID jabs now literally crumbling, it seems incredibly likely that the quick development and initial scarcity of the inoculations were just two more lies—marketing fictions, solidly rooted in the playbooks and historical machinations of master propagandist Edward Bernays. Ginned up fear of COVID and literally everything we were told thereafter now seems to have been carefully designed to generate intense demand for products that could make Big Pharma new profits and yield Big Gov tons of control.

Of course, hundreds of thousands of pages of Pfizer-related documents—which the FDA unsuccessfully attempted to withhold from the public for 75 years—now show that the Federal Government, at least one pharmaceutical giant, and probably all of them, knew beyond any doubt from the beginning, and increasingly over time, that what was being given—in many cases, forced upon—people in the form of COVID injections, would not only fail to provide advertised protections (criminal fraud) but would damage or kill recipients (criminal harm), including folks right here in Dane County.

Remember COVID-19 injections were approved only under emergency use authorization (EUA), tying them to another serious lie...that no other existing or reasonable treatment existed to effectively combat the virus. In fact, mere days before the PHMDC blog post in question, the FDA had approved Johnson & Johnson’s effort at a COVID injection, expanding the list of options to three, where previously only Pfizer and Moderna had been available. Ostensibly, then, through its blog, PHMDC was addressing the question of which of three options was best.

It’s now more than fair to ask, however, if that’s all PHMDC was doing.

Suppression as a Cue for Investigation

The very first COVID shots began to roll out in late December 2020. Then, as early as January and February 2021, disturbing reports began to surface, suggesting that the COVID jabs might not actually be as “completely safe and effective” as vociferously advertised. Startlingly and noticeably, major news outlets and social media platforms began working overtime to ignore, dismiss, or suppress—in a word, censor—any negative information regarding the so-called vaccines, frequently labeling anecdotal reports and scientific studies alike as “misinformation” or “disinformation.” Say the wrong thing about the jabs, and you were likely to be silenced or even completely de-platformed. Whether one agreed or disagreed with this tactic, no one could honestly deny it was happening.

Such suppression of information should have made any responsible public health agency both curious and cautious regarding official narratives. Indeed, despite significant suppression, with just a modicum of digging, anyone at PHMDC who cared to look could and would have found multiple reports and significant data related to the jab rollout. Many of those reports were, in fact, being gathered and shared by U.S. websites and platforms. One of the most prominent sites doing such work was (and remains) Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s high-profile and well-established Children’s Health Defense (CHD), which has long made vaccine safety one of its principle concerns.

CHD was far from alone in verifying, aggregating, and reporting news on the negative impacts of the COVID jabs. Numerous doctors, researchers, everyday citizens, and alternative media outlets in the U.S. and elsewhere were working diligently to provide emerging information. I’ve chosen to focus on CHD posts for two reasons. First, it is an established, known, and respected organization. Anyone in the public health arena would at least have had an awareness of the site and its focus on vaccination-related issues.

Second, CHD regularly cites other sources in its posts—including pro-jab outlets that were nevertheless reporting negative events relative to the rollout. Such links effectively verify that valuable though disturbing jab-related information was emerging through a wide array of venues.

From the outset, PHMDC, with its legal responsibility to protect the public, has either utterly failed to investigate such reports or ignored them at the expense of the public. Again, not once since Dane County began, has anyone at PHMDC: 1) openly acknowledged with gravity a single negative revelation about the shots, 2) exercised any caution in light of such emerging information, or 3) made any effort to convey a growing list of the multiple and significant risks the shots posed to Dane County residents. To this day, they remain wholly enthusiastic in their efforts to get people of all ages and circumstances jabbed, boosted, and reboosted. As one bit of evidence, here’s a screenshot of a PHMDC Facebook post a reader sent us on December 5, 2022—just days ago—in which PHMDC has used a still from Home Alone to advance the jab. I'll let the messaging speak for itself. Let it all sink in.

The Tip of the Information Iceberg

Let’s take a look at just a small handful of stories and sources that would have been available to PHMDC prior to its “Which Vaccine Should I Get?” blog post on March 3, 2021.

January 18, 2021

CHD reported that Chinese health experts had recently advised both Norway and Germany to suspend COVID inoculation of the elderly. Plumbing the links in the article, one discovers a chain of related news items, published as the story was developing. The first, a January 15th article in the Chinese Global Times, notes that 23 Norwegians over the age of 80 had recently died post-Pfizer jab—an inauspicious beginning to that nation's rollout.

The second link of note, a January 17th article on an Australian media outlet, notes that the Norwegian deaths had climbed to 29. When queried as to whether the event was of concern, Australian health officials astonishingly dismissed the deaths as likely “a coincidence” that “would have occurred anyway.”

The third important CHD link is to an article by U.S. outlet Bloomberg, also dated January 18th, in which the Norwegian deaths had risen to 33. While stating that no direct link existed to the vaccine, Bloomberg nevertheless stunningly noted that doctors had been “expecting nursing home residents to die shortly after injection, because deaths are more common among the sickest and frailest elderly patients.” They actually quoted the Norwegian Institute of Public Health as saying that “for those with the most severe frailty, even relatively mild vaccine side effects can have serious consequences. For those who have a very short remaining life span anyway, the benefit of the vaccine may be marginal or irrelevant.”

Gee…that quote provides exceedingly clear reason not to vaccinate the sickest and frailest…doesn’t it? Never mind that it should have provoked PHMDC and other public health agencies around the world to wonder what the hell was going on that people would callously jab the elderly, fully expecting death to result.

Reported by multiple news outlets and openly acknowledged by at least three governments—including Norway’s, where the deaths occurred, doesn’t this story seem like the sort of thing of which PHMDC could and should have been aware? Doesn’t it seem like the kind of information that PHMDC should have been actively watching for, relative to new and experimental therapeutics? And if they tracked such information, shouldn’t it have given the agency's leadership pause...? Caused them to apply the brakes to Dane County's campaign to inoculate the elderly? That sort of awareness and diligence was their purview and responsibility, was it not...?

February 16th, 2021

CHD relayed a Feb 4th report from Andalucía, where 46 Spanish nursing home residents had died within a month of their first Pfizer injection. More real-world, feedback available to PHMDC, in helpful English, that bore heavily on the elderly population they were working so assiduously to inoculate. Yet, still not a peep out of the agency concerning risk. Just “Forward, ho!”

February 19th, 2021

CHD was watching the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) from the beginning of the COVID jab campaign, reporting what they saw along the way.

Concerning VAERS statistics released on February 12th, CHD noted 15,923 adverse reactions related to COVID shots, including 929 deaths—about one third of which had “occurred within 48 hours of the individual receiving the injection.” [all emphasis in boldface my own] CHD also provided concerning but helpful tallies of miscarriages, anaphylactic reactions, Bell’s palsy, and cardiac issues, all likely but not yet provably related to the jabs.

Again, consider that most of these adverse events were primarily occurring among the jab-approved elderly and that, due to underreporting to that system, VAERS represents but a fraction of what is generally happening in the wider population.

You’d think PHMDC might also have chosen to keep a close eye on VAERS, especially considering the new and experimental nature of the shots being deployed. It’s impossible to believe that PHMDC personnel just didn’t know about this federally mandated resource. What’s more, the agency has trained epidemiologists on staff capable of understanding the VAERS datawhose task it should have been to extrapolate from it any likely impacts on Dane County. Yet PHMDC made no effort to leverage or publicly reference statistics from this resource. “Safe and effective” continued to be their only touted line relative to the jabs.

March 1st, 2021

Just two days prior to PHMDC’s “Which Vaccine Should I Get?” post, CHD published two additional articles that should have raised the local agency’s eyebrows. The first highlighted a February 8th interview, in which a whistleblower working in a German nursing home for dementia patients asserted that 25 percent of that facility’s 31 patients died after receiving the Pfizer vaccine—all but one after the first dose. An additional 36 percent of residents, the whistleblower claimed, had sustained significant vaccine injuries that noticeably worsened after a second dose. The interview, conducted in German, provided easily understandable English subtitles.

The second of CHD’s articles noted that VAERS reports concerning COVID jabs had climbed by nearly 4,000 in a single week. As of February 18th, the 19,907 total adverse events reported included 1,095 deaths, of which approximately 21 percent were cardiac-related. CHD scrupulously explained that a VAERS report provided no certain evidence of the cause of the injuries. However, the database was certainly revealing that something was not right with the COVID shots and that serious investigation and caution were now warranted.

With its mandate to prevent human health hazards, PHMDC had a legal duty to be aware of the impacts of the experimental therapeutics they were actively helping roll out. Are we really to believe that PHMDC leadership and personnel had no idea that inoculations normally take years and sometimes decades to develop? That controversial gene therapies supposedly rushed to market under experimental authorization couldn't possibly be “completely safe and effective” for everyone? Did they really believe no problems would surface? Are we to believe they just didn’t know about the negative reports? We do certainly know from open records requests and meeting minutes that the PHMDC data team had become increasingly aware that a growing number of breakthrough cases were occurring among those who'd received the shots, yet failed to share the fullness of their awareness and concerns with the public (see links to previous DU posts already provided above, especially this one).

“The One You’re Offered”

Whatever you believe about PHMDC’s actions and motives, I leave you with this final set of questions…

Why, as multiple negative reports began to come back regarding the impacts of the COVID jabs on elderly populations, in particular, did PHMDC remain silent on such matters? Why did they instead publish a March 3rd blog post that seems designed to pre-emptively squelch reasonable and responsible questions concerning the effectiveness and safety of three different jabs? It's a particularly relevant question, considering the fact that one of those jabs has since been banned by the FDA, a second has been revealed through the Pfizer document dump to have been so unsafe as to be removed from Pfizer's testing and trials, and multiple reports on all three jabs can be found in VAERS from early on in the rollout.

Have you ever been presented with medical or pharmaceutical options? Have you ever sought a second or third medical opinion in order to garner the best possible information about what you should or shouldn’t do relative to your medical circumstances—in order to achieve the best possible health outcomes?

If so, why didn’t you just trust and pursue the first opinion rendered? The first advice offered?

Isn’t it because you wanted to discover if there might be better advice? Greater insight? Additional possibilities?

Wasn’t it because you knew that medical procedures and pharmaceuticals are not one-size-fits-all? That not all doctors are created equal? That medical insight and advice can be deeply flawed? That pharmaceutical interventions labeled as completely safe sometimes turn out to be dangerous?

Wasn’t it because you didn’t want to take the chance of getting it wrong with something as important as your health and your life?

Weren’t you exercising wisdom and prudence in pursuing further insight?

Isn't seeking the best information to make the wisest decision what we're all supposed to do?

Why, then, would PHMDC issue such a deeply irresponsible and utterly unethical response, advising Dane County residents simply to take: “The one you’re offered”?

Why would a local agency tasked with bolstering public health insist that members of this community abandon inquiry, wisdom, and prudence in favor of blind acceptance and trust?

Don’t think. Don’t question. Sit down. Shut up. Accept whatever happens to be available to stick in your arm.

Does that response respect your rights? Your intelligence? Your health? Your life?

Does this response in any way square with PHMDC’s statutory responsibilities to you? To those you love? To your neighbors in this county?

Limited supply of a drug, controversial or otherwise, is not a valid excuse for failing to properly inform those you ostensibly serve regarding even unlikely risks. Which further begs the question: Why is PHMDC still refusing to speak openly and honestly about now known and highly significant risks related to the COVID jabs?

And if PHMDC will not willingly investigate or communicate serious risks—if it will not perform its duty to us under the law—why should we continue to rely on or fund it?

Recent Posts


Commenting has been turned off.
bottom of page