Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

COVID-19

Funeral director says 25% of bodies now have ‘fibrous clots’ in arteries after COVID shots

Published

2 months ago

17 minute read

Funeral Director John O’Looney

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

Despite attempts to alert authorities to the novel clotting, no action has been taken, with government policy seemingly avoiding investigation.

Reports have persisted following the rollout of the so-called mRNA “vaccines” of the incidence of white fibrous clots in the bodies of the deceased.

Despite repeated attempts to “debunk” the sudden and widespread appearance of these clots, evidence is mounting that they are not only present, but that the reason this novel pathology has attracted hardly any attention from the medical profession is that the dead in whose bodies they are found have one thing in common:

They have all been vaccinated.

Two recent video interviews featuring whistleblowers from the U.K. and the U.S. have now been published, in which each present evidence of the presence of white fibrous “calamari-like” clots in the corpses of the COVID vaccinated.

The claim that they occur in those who have received the mRNA injections is advanced by both men. One, John O’Looney, is a funeral director from Milton Keynes in England. He is the source of the shocking quote above, made in a recent interview with nurse instructor Dr. John Campbell.

Published on February 9, the video details how O’Looney began to notice the incidence of these novel fibrous white clots “around six months after the [COVID] vaccines were introduced.”

He states that midway through 2021 he noticed the first incidence of the white fibrous clots – six months after the introduction of the so called “vaccines.”

O’Looney says that around “25 percent” of all bodies he sees now have these clots present.

He showed a recent sample of these “arterial obstructions”: “They grow inside the arteries and veins and take the shape of them” – until those who develop them die, claims O’Looney.

The clots we are seeing are different – traditionally clots are like jelly – you can wash them down the sink.

These clots are very tough – like calamari.

I have never seen anything like this. It is very tough, very rubbery.

I can’t see how this can be removed without invasive surgery.

We follow government policy

O’Looney says he has repeatedly attempted to alert the authorities, with no action taken as a result.

He related the recent postmortem of a young man who “died suddenly,” having discovered a “bright white” clot the “full length” of the leg of the deceased.

O’Looney claims he documented the strange clot with the local coroner by email. A later response from the pathologist said that these clots normally form and “there was nothing to report,” directing him to effectively “dispose of the evidence,” said O’Looney.

He added that the BIE – the national embalmer’s organization – has warned its members not to speak to him personally. The chief coroner has refused to investigate.

“When I emailed the chief coroner of England I did not get a reply,” O’Looney said. On a second attempt he received a “four word reply” from the secretary, simply stating “We follow government policy.”

O’Looney concluded that it is therefore government policy to refuse to investigate. “We have record numbers of excess deaths. We are trying to raise the alarm and nobody is listening.” Instead, O’Looney claims the authorities “are actively gaslighting people.” Deaths involving the presence of these anomalous clots are attributed to “thrombosis,” with no mention of any relation to the so-called “vaccines.”

Not alone

O’Looney claims he has had “60 or 70 other funeral directors contact” him in support, saying “mortuary managers have told me thrombosis deaths have gone up 600 percent.”

Why have they not spoken out? “These people are frightened” O’Looney says, “I am just not frightened. I have a moral compass which will not allow me to be complicit.”

Against the debunkers’ charge that there is no evidence of any connection to the mRNA injections, O’Looney says he has asked “the loved ones of the deceased” whether they had received a COVID jab.

“They are all vaccinated.”

Nurse John Campbell, Ph.D., points out that this “new pathology” is something doctors would normally be motivated to investigate. O’Looney explains why this is not happening:

Where do the families go with it? The coroners won’t entertain it. I reported this to Thames Valley Police on April 28 of last year, incident number 1068.

I said I really need to speak to someone about [these deaths].

They would not even speak to me.

This has left him with “no faith in the police or in the system at all.”

Measures on suspicious deaths ‘diluted’

O’Looney says measures to monitor and record unlawful deaths may be removed.

“It’s a great time to do a murder,” he notes, as the measures to prevent corpses being cremated under suspicious circumstances have been “diluted – as a result of COVID, so they said.”

Formerly, he claims, two doctors would have to certify a cremation – this has now been reduced to one.

“I won’t stop telling the truth” says O’Looney, citing a report from a hospice nurse showing “turbo cancers” which kill within weeks of having no symptoms, dying of aggressive cancer “before they can receive a single treatment.”

“These people have one thing in common. They have all been vaccinated.”

Whilst Campbell says “This can’t be hidden much longer,” O’Looney warns of the “future these genocidal maniacs have for us.”

He says he has lost friends and even relatives over allegations he is a “conspiracy theorist.”

Yet far from being a lone voice, his data is “completely consistent with that collected by Major Tom Havilland,” as Campbell says.

A survey conducted by retired U.S. Air Force Major Thomas Haviland found that “70 percent of embalmers reported finding strange blood clots beginning in mid-2021.”

Haviland carried out a second survey in 2023, with over twice the number of participating embalmers from across the U.S.

His study showed that over 75 percent of respondents were still seeing the anomalous fibrous white clots.

Evidence from US investigations

Alex Jones has published a video featuring U.S. funeral director Richard Hirschman showing vials containing clots identical to those displayed by O’Looney.

One of four funeral directors on the show, Hirschman is shown extracting one such clot from the jugular vein of a deceased and vaccinated individual.

“These are the strange white fibrous materials we are seeing.” One was “27 inches long,” he said.

“We used to never see clots in arteries – they are typically in veins. They are abnormal – rubbery – like a rubber band.”

In a second show, Jones interviewed Haviland himself, who said his interest in the issue was provoked by the controversial Stew Peters documentary, “Died Suddenly.”

“I watched that the night it premiered, the week of thanksgiving of 2022,” Haviland said. “I know there are some problems with the film, but at the thirteenth minute an amazing statement was made.”

Haviland refers to seeing the embalmer from the state of Indiana, Wallace Hooker, who on October 26, 2022, was briefing “about a hundred embalmers” at an Ohio Embalmers’ Association lecture.

“He showed them photographs of these white fibrous clots… and asked – “by a show of hands, how many of you are seeing these?”

Haviland says:

Almost the entire room of 100 embalmers raised their hands – yes.

He continues, saying the embalmers “all agreed it was in the middle of 2021” that the clots first began to be noticed – “after the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines.”

Haviland decided to investigate himself. The next day  he called the president, vice president, and secretary of the Ohio Embalmers’ Association.

“The vice president corroborated” the claims, saying he had “seen the clots himself.”

In the video, Haviland goes on to present evidence from his two surveys in a presentation.

The surveys, conducted in 2022 and 2023, show details of admitted clotting side effects from the COVID shots, and that two thirds of embalmers he contacted in his first survey had witnessed the novel fibrous white clots in “up to 50 percent or more of their corpses.”

His studies, to which international embalmers also responded, show that the higher incidence of clotting is not restricted to the novel pathology of these white fibrous clots, but also shows a sharp increase in “traditional ‘grape jelly’ blood clots.”

Haviland was keen to corroborate the testimony of John O’Looney. When asked why more did not participate in the study or speak out, he too cited fear as one reason, with the reluctance of funeral directors to admit such side effects in vaccines they are likely to have compelled their own employees to take.

“Embalmers want to tell you what they are seeing only if they think they have permission” – from the authorities, says Haviland.

A lot of these [embalmers’] association presidents are directors themselves of funeral homes.

Would you want to participate in a survey showing these clots if you have mandated your employees to get the vaccine?

Fact check?

Haviland’s, Jones’, and O’Looney’s findings have been repeatedly dismissed and “debunked.”

The Poynter Institute is one leading self-appointed authority which claims to have disproven O’Looney’s reports. It says there is “no scientific evidence” for any connection between the clots and the mRNA injections.

Its purported rebuttal reads as a template for the maintenance of the COVID narrative.

The rebuttal –such as it is – immediately pivots from discussion of the evidence to warning people to take more of the so called “vaccines.” The strategy relies on attributing any alleged adverse effects of the “vaccine” to COVID-19 itself.

On February 10, 2022, the Poynter Institute “debunking” said, “Experts we talked to say there’s something to the claim about a greater incidence of blood clots, but they dismiss the idea that it’s linked to the vaccines.”

“What embalmers are noticing, they say, could well be the effects of COVID-19 infection itself, and those effects are occurring in people who are vaccinated and unvaccinated.”

Why is there no evidence presented by the Poynter Institute for its own claims? There is no attempt to investigate the abnormally high incidence of all types of clotting in the deceased in the period immediately following mass “vaccination.” Similarly, no attempt has been made to investigate the international incidence of vaccine side effects being reported by people like Haviland and O’Looney.

“It’s only anecdotal evidence, and there’s no scientific evidence to draw any conclusions,” said Jessica Koth, director of public relations for the U.S.-based National Funeral Directors Association in the Poynter article.

Why is there no “scientific evidence”? No scientists seem willing to study the case at all. As Campbell pointed out, it is unusual that there is so little interest in a “novel pathology.”

Unevidenced claims

Poynter’s supposed rebuttal itself makes an unevidenced claim which, through repetition alone, appears to be held up as the truth by those who still believe that the “vaccines” are “100% safe and effective.”

“Generally, the vaccines available in the U.S. have been shown to sharply reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19,” their February 2022 article states.

There is no way of distinguishing between “vaccine” and viral harm as no effort was made to do so, which itself is a suspicious measure when promoting a novel treatment whose manufacturers are permanently indemnified from any resulting claims of injury or death.

It is noteworthy that the so-called “vaccines” were not initially advertised on television as they had not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. This, claim the debunkers, is a fact unrelated to the requirement to include warnings of known adverse effects.

Motivated reasoning

The motives of those defending the “vaccines” from any connection to the emergence of these fibrous clots, other thromboses, and the many horrendous conditions noted by doctors such as Britain’s Dr. David Cartland is at one with “following government policy.”

What then is the motive of people like John O’Looney?

O’Looney claimed in his interview with Campbell that he is motivated only by “truth and honesty, and the desire to protect others.”

“We are raising concerns – but no one is listening.”

He is also determined to see those responsible brought to justice, as he said in May 2023:

I’ll be totally honest, I live now only to give my testimony in Nuremberg and see these people sentenced appropriately for their crimes against humanity and shame on those who took the money and went along with it.

They will fill the prisons they built for us.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Automotive / 16 mins ago

Vehicle monitoring software could soon use ‘kill switch’ under the guise of ‘safety’

Addictions / 35 mins ago

City of Toronto asks Trudeau gov’t to decriminalize hard drugs despite policy’s failure in BC

Business / 5 hours ago

When politicians gamble, taxpayers lose

COVID-19

Canada’s COVID vaccine injury program has paid out just 6% of claims so far

Published on May 1, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Data from Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program shows that to date, only 138 of the 2,233 claims have been approved by a medical board for a payout.

Canada’s program for those injured by the COVID vaccines, which the federal government still insists are safe, has only paid out 6 percent of the claims made.

A look at the data from the nation’s Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) shows that to date, only 138 of the 2,233 claims made to the program have been approved by a medical board for payout.  

Some 2,069 claims have had an “administrative review completed” with 1,825 being deemed “admissible,” but remain in the process of “being depersonalized and prepared to move forward to a preliminary medical review.” Some 620 claims have been assessed by the Medical Review Board but are still under review.  

Total payouts so far stand around $11.2 million, with the number of people filing claims to the program growing steadily.  

LifeSiteNews recently reported that the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s recently tabled 2024 budget earmarked an extra $36 million for the program.  

Some people who were successful in getting payouts from VISP have said that the compensation awarded was insufficient considering the injuries sustained from the COVID shots.  

As reported by LifeSiteNews last year, 42-year-old Ross Wightman from British Columbia launched a lawsuit against AstraZeneca, the federal government of Canada, the government of his province, and the pharmacy at which he was injected after receiving what he considers inadequate compensation from VISP.   

He was one of the first citizens in Canada to receive federal financial compensation due to a COVID vaccine injury under VISP. Wightman received the AstraZeneca shot in April 2021 and shortly after became totally paralyzed. He was subsequently diagnosed with Guillain-Barré Syndrome.   

Whitman was given a one-time payout of $250,000 and about $90,000 per year in income replacement, but noted, as per a recent True North report, that he does not even know if those dollar amounts “would ease the pain.” 

All Canadian provinces except Quebec are covered by VISP, who has its own vaccine compensation program that also appears to be slow at paying out to applicants.

Yesterday, LifeSiteNews reported about a 30-year-old Quebec man who developed a severe skin condition after taking Moderna’s mRNA experimental COVID-19 shot. He still has not heard anything from the provincial government regarding compensation through its vaccine injury program despite the debilitating nature of his condition.  

Despite the need for a federal program to address those injured by the vaccines once mandated by the Trudeau government, Health Canada still says “[I]t’s safe to receive a COVID-19 vaccine following infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. Vaccination is very important, even if you’ve had COVID-19.”  

The federal government is also continuing to purchase COVID jabs despite the fact the government’s own data shows that most Canadians are flat-out refusing a COVID booster injection.  

Indeed, records show the federal government has spent approximately $9.9 million on social media advertising to promote the

Continue Reading

COVID-19

States move to oppose WHO’s ‘pandemic treaty,’ assert states’ rights

Published on April 30, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Michael Nevradakis Ph. D.,

Utah and Florida passed laws intended to prevent the WHO from overriding states’ authority on matters of public health policy, and Louisiana and Oklahoma have legislation set to take effect soon pending final votes.

Two states have passed laws – and two states have bills pending – intended to prevent the World Health Organization (WHO) from overriding states’ authority on matters of public health policy.

Utah and Florida passed laws and Louisiana and Oklahoma have legislation set to take effect soon pending final votes. Several other states are considering similar bills.

The WHO member states will convene next month at the World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, to vote on two proposals – the so-called “pandemic accord” or “pandemic treaty,” and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) – that would give the WHO sweeping new pandemic powers.

The Biden administration supports the two WHO proposals, but opposition is growing at the state level.

Proponents of the WHO’s proposals say they are vital for preparing humanity against the “next pandemic,” perhaps caused by a yet-unknown “Disease X.”

But the bills passed by state legislatures reflect frequently voiced criticisms that the WHO’s proposals imperil national sovereignty, medical and bodily sovereignty and personal liberties, and may lead to global vaccine mandates.

Critics also argue the WHO proposals may open the door to global digital “health passports” and global censorship targeting alleged “misinformation.”

Such criticisms are behind state legislative initiatives to oppose the WHO, on the basis that states’ rights are protected under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Under the 10th Amendment, all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Such powers, critics say, include public health policy.

It is encouraging to see states like Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Utah pass resolutions to clarify that the WHO has no power to determine health policy in their states. Historically, health has been the purview of state and local government, not the U.S. federal government.

There is no legitimate constitutional basis for the federal government to outsource health decision-making on pandemics to an international body. As state legislatures become aware of the WHO’s agenda, they are pushing back to assert their autonomy – and this is welcome.

Internist Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, told The Defender that, contrary to arguments that the drafters of the constitution could not foresee future public health needs, vaccines, doctors, and medicine were all in existence at the time the 10th Amendment was written. They were “deliberately left out,” she said.

READ: Thousands of protesters rally in Tokyo against proposed WHO pandemic treaty

This has implications for the federal government’s efforts in support of the WHO’s proposals, according to Nass. “The government doesn’t have the authority to give the WHO powers for which it lacks authority,” she said.

Tennessee state Rep. Bud Hulsey (R-Sullivan County) told The Epoch Times, “We’re almost to a place in this country that the federal government has trampled on the sovereignty of states for so long that in peoples’ minds, they have no options.”

“It’s like whatever the federal government says is the supreme law of the land, and it’s not. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land,” he added.

Utah, Florida laws passed

On January 31, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R) signed Senate Bill 57, the “Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act,” into law. It does not mention the WHO, but prohibits “enforcement of a federal directive within the state by government officers if the Legislature determines the federal directive violates the principles of state sovereignty.”

In May 2023, Florida passed Senate Bill 252 (SB 252), a bill for “Protection from Discrimination Based on Health Care Choices.” Among other clauses, it prohibits businesses and public entities from requiring proof of vaccination or prophylaxis for the purposes of employment, receipt of services, or gaining entry to such entities.

According to Section 3 of SB 252:

A governmental entity as defined… or an educational institution… may not adopt, implement, or enforce an international health organization’s public health policies or guidelines unless authorized to do so under state law, rule, or executive order issued by the Governor.

Nass told The Defender that Florida’s legislation offers a back door through which the state can implement WHO policies because it allows a state law, rule, or executive order by the governor to override the bill. According to Nass, efforts to strengthen the bill have been unsuccessful.

SB 252 was one of four bills Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed in May 2023 in support of medical freedom. The other bills were House Bill 1387, banning gain-of-function research, Senate Bill 1580, protecting physicians’ freedom of speech, and Senate Bill 238, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of people’s medical choices.

Louisiana, Oklahoma also push back against the WHO

The Louisiana Senate on March 26 voted unanimously to pass Senate Law No. 133, barring the WHO, United Nations (U.N.) and World Economic Forum from wielding influence over the state.

According to the legislation:

No rule, regulation, fee, tax, policy, or mandate of any kind of the World Health Organization, United Nations, and the World Economic Forum shall be enforced or implemented by the state of Louisiana or any agency, department, board, commission, political subdivision, governmental entity of the state, parish, municipality, or any other political entity.

The bill is now pending Louisiana House of Representatives approval and if passed, is set to take effect August 1.

On April 24, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 426 (SB 426), which states, “The World Health Organization, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum shall have no jurisdiction in the State of Oklahoma.”

READ: Lawmakers, conservatives blast WHO plan for ‘global governance’ on future pandemics

According to the bill:

Any mandates, recommendations, instructions, communications or guidance issued by the World Health Organization, the United Nations or the World Economic Forum shall not be used in this state as a basis for action, nor to direct, order or otherwise impose, contrary to the constitution and laws of the State of Oklahoma any requirements whatsoever, including those for masks, vaccines or medical testing, or gather any public or private information about the state’s citizens or residents, and shall have no force or effect in the State of Oklahoma.

According to Door to Freedom, the bill was first introduced last year and unanimously passed the Senate. An amended version will return to the Senate for a new vote, and if passed, the law will take effect June 1.

Legislative push continues in states where bills opposing the WHO failed

Legislative initiatives opposing the WHO in other states have so far been unsuccessful.

In Tennessee, lawmakers proposed three bills opposing the WHO, but “none of them made it over the finish line,” said Bernadette Pajer of the CHD Tennessee Chapter.

“Many Tennessee legislators are concerned about the WHO and three of them filed resolutions to protect our sovereignty,” Pajer said. “Our legislature runs on a biennium, and this was the second year, so those three bills have died. But I do expect new ones will be filed next session.”

The proposed bills were:

  • House Joint Resolution 820(HJR 820), passed in the Tennessee House of Representatives. The bill called on the federal government to “end taxpayer funding” of the WHO and reject the WHO’s two proposals.
  • House Joint Resolution 1359(HJR 1359) stalled in the Delayed Bills Committee. It proposed that “neither the World Health Organization, United Nations, nor the World Economic Forum shall have any jurisdiction or power within the State of Tennessee.”
  • Senate Joint Resolution 1135(SJR 1135) opposed “the United States’ participation in the World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Prevention Preparedness and Response Accord (PPPRA) and urges the Biden Administration to withdraw our nation from the PPPRA.”

Amy Miller, a registered lobbyist for Reform Pharma, told The Defender she “supported these resolutions, especially HJR 1359. She said the bill “went to a committee where the sponsor didn’t think it would come out since a unanimous vote was needed and one of the three members was a Democrat.”

Tennessee’s HJR 820 came the closest to being enacted. According to Nass, this bill was “flawed,” as it “did not assert state sovereignty or the 10th Amendment.”

Another Tennessee bill, House Bill 2795 and Senate Bill 2775, “establishes processes by which the general assembly [of the state of Tennessee] may nullify an unconstitutional federal statute, regulation, agency order, or executive order.”

According to The Epoch Times, this would give Tennessee residents “the right to demand that state legislators vote on whether or not to enforce regulations or executive orders that violate citizens’ rights under the federal or state constitutions.” The bill is tabled for “summer study” in the Senate.

In May 2023, Tennessee passed legislation opposing “net zero” proposals and the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals – which have been connected to “green” policies and the implementation of digital ID for newborn babies and for which the U.N. has set a target date of 2030 for implementation.

According to The Epoch Times, “Maine state Rep. Heidi Sampson attempted to get a ‘joint order’ passed in support of personal autonomy and against compliance with the WHO agreements, but it garnered little interest in the Democrat supermajority legislature.”

In Alabama, the Senate passed House Joint Resolution 113 opposing the WHO. The bill was reported out of committee but, according to Nass, it stalled.

Other states where similar legislation was proposed in the 2024 session or is pending include Georgia, Idaho, Iowa,  Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Wyoming.

Recent Supreme Court ruling may curtail federal government’s powers

While opponents of the WHO’s proposed “pandemic agreement” and IHR amendments point to the states’ rights provision of the 10th Amendment, others argue that a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council allowed federal agencies to assert more authority to make laws.

The tide may be turning, however. According to The Epoch Times, “The current Supreme Court has taken some steps to rein in the administrative state, including the landmark decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, ruling that federal agencies can’t assume powers that Congress didn’t explicitly give them.”

Nass said that even in states where lawmakers have not yet proposed bills to oppose the WHO, citizens can take action, by contacting the office of their state governor, who can issue an executive order, or their attorney general, who can issue a legal opinion.

Door to Freedom has also developed a model resolution that state legislative bodies can use as the basis for their own legislation.

“It’s important for people to realize that if the federal government imposes something on the people, the people can go through their state’s powers to overturn it,” Nass said.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

Continue Reading

Trending

X