There is a pretty good chance that the so-called “monkeypox,” which this writer is choosing to refer to as pridepox since primarily LGBT males are contracting and spreading it, is just Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “vaccine”-induced shingles under a different name.
In an attempt to cover up the deadly long-term impact of Pfizer’s mRNA (messenger RNA) injection – and possibly the others as well – governments of the world are colluding with the media to categorize pridepox as a new plandemic when the reality is that it could simply be the inevitable outcome of mRNA shots.
Exposé News, which tends to probe more deeply into these types of issues than many other independent media sources, discovered that the only countries where pridepox is now said to be an issue are those that widely distributed Pfizer’s Chinese Virus injection (Related: Officials in the United Kingdom are already pushing to inject children with new “vaccines” for pridepox.
There is clearly a plan moving forward to make pridepox the next global plandemic, as demonstrated by World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’s eagerness to declare it a global “public health emergency.” And Exposé News and others are trying to get ahead of the narrative by offering up a different version of the story.
“… we’re seeing the consequences of injecting millions of people with an experimental mRNA injection that causes untold damage to the immune system, and public health authorities are now scrambling to cover up Covid-19 vaccine-induced shingles and using it as an opportunity to advance their technocratic agenda of implementing ‘The Great Reset,’” the news outlet reports.
Monkeypox is indistinguishable from chickenpox (and shingles), 1988 study found
Russia, most of Africa, and all of Asia are seeing zero “cases” of pridepox, even as Western Europe, the United States, and Canada are supposedly seeing a massive surge of the disease.
How can this be if diseases are colorblind and race-blind? Could it be that we are not being told the truth about pridepox?
Various types of monkeypox have been circulating in parts of Africa for at least the past 50 years. Never once have they left the continent, but now, suddenly, we are supposed to believe that the disease magically escaped Africa and is now circulating throughout the West specifically, and right on the back of another global plandemic with similarly suspicious origins?
It turns out that a scientific study published back in 1988 found that it is virtually impossible to tell the difference between monkeypox and chickenpox. And the adult version of chickenpox is none other shingles, an adult form of the disease that is much worse than the children’s version.
“And like its other cousin, genital herpes, varicella may be silent for many years, hiding out inside nerve cells and can reactivate later, wreaking havoc in the form of the excruciating skin disorder, shingles, which is a blistering, burning skin rash,” Exposé News adds, tying it back to the abominable behavior of LGBT males who are actively contracting and spreading it.
“What you’re being told is ‘monkeypox’ is really COVID-19 vaccine-induced herpes infection, shingles, autoimmune blistering disease and other ailments brought on by a weakened immune system caused by COVID-19 vaccination.”
If this is all true ¬– and it certainly appears to be a strong possibility – then once again the world is being lied to by the “authorities.” The injections that were forced on people in the name of stopping “COVID” are now fueling a new outbreak of jab-induced shingles, which they are calling monkeypox. And the goal, apparently, is to finalize a new world order and great reset for the entire planet.
The latest news about pridepox can be found at Outbreak.news.
Stockholm School of Economics professor and researcher Magnus Soderlund reportedly said he believes eating human meat, derived from dead bodies, might be able to help save the human race if only a world society were to “awaken the idea.”
Soderlund’s argument for human cannibalism was front and center during a panel talk called “Can you Imagine Eating Human Flesh?” at the Gastro Summit, reports The Epoch Times. “Conservative” taboos against cannibalism, he said, can change over time if peoples simply tried eating human flesh.
The Jamaican government could face a challenge to any amendments to prohibit bail for accused persons, based on a Privy Council ruling today in a case from Trinidad and Tobago.
The UK-based Privy Council is the final appellate court for Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago.
The court agreed with T&T’s Court of Appeal that a 1994 Bail Act that imposed a general block on bail for persons accused of murder and certain other crimes was unconstitutional.
“A blanket prohibition of bail infringes a number of the rights and freedoms…,” the judges wrote.
They added: “A fundamental objection to a blanket prohibition of bail is that it treats all persons charged with murder indiscriminately and denies the possibility of bail, whatever the circumstances and however compelling the case for bail may be. As such it operates in an arbitrary and potentially unfair and unjust way.”
The appeal was brought by the T&T’s Attorney General, which sought to overturn a Court of Appeal ruling.
Section 5(1) of Trinidad’s Bail Act of 1994 prohibits bail for persons charged with murder and certain other offences.
The Court of Appeal had ruled in February that the bail provision was not an existing law and that it was not reasonably justifiable under the Constitution.
In dismissing the appeal, the Privy Council said it accepted that the Attorney General’s submission that the main public policy concerns behind the Bail Act were the reduction of the incidence of violent crime, minimising the risk to public safety posed by repeat offenders and a concern about courts being too willing to grant bail to people who committed further crimes.
In relation to the bail provision, there was also the need to ensure that they do not interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.
The Privy Council said those objectives “are sufficiently important to justify the limitation of a fundamental right and in particular the right to liberty”.
However, the Privy Council said the current provision against bail was too arbitrary.
“The variety of circumstances in which a murder charge can arise means that there may well be cases where none of the objectives of a prohibition of bail will be served. There is no risk of absconding; there is no risk of further offending; there is no risk of interfering with witnesses or of obstructing the course of justice. In such cases there is likely to be a very compelling case for bail, but the blanket prohibition means that bail will not be possible,” the judges said.
The judges said “preventing differential treatment in cases with different circumstances involves what has been described as a “standardless sweep”.
The Privy Council said it gave careful consideration to the strong public interest in the objectives of the bail provision and the great weight to be given to the judgment of Parliament.
“Bearing in mind that less intrusive measures could have been used, the Board nevertheless considers that in all the circumstances of the present case the interest of the community as expressed through the will of Parliament is outweighed by the severe consequences of the imposition of a blanket prohibition of bail and that a fair balance has not been struck.’