Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

80 Groups Blast US Interference in Mexico’s Phaseout of Glyphosate and GM Corn

By Jessica Corbett | Common Dreams | April 29, 2021

A coalition of 80 U.S. agricultural, consumer, environmental, public health, and worker groups sent a letter Thursday to key figures in the Biden administration calling for them to “respect Mexico’s sovereignty and refrain from interfering with its right to enact health-protective policies” — specifically, the phaseout of the herbicide glyphosate and the cultivation of genetically modified corn.

“Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador quietly rocked the agribusiness world with his New Year’s Eve decree,” Timothy A. Wise of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (ITAP) noted earlier this year. “His administration sent an even stronger aftershock two weeks later, clarifying that the government would also phase out GM corn imports in three years and the ban would include not just corn for human consumption but yellow corn destined primarily for livestock.”

“Mexico imports about 30% of its corn each year, overwhelmingly from the United States,” Wise added. “Almost all of that is yellow corn for animal feed and industrial uses. López Obrador’s commitment to reducing and, by 2024, eliminating such imports reflects his administration’s plan to ramp up Mexican production as part of the campaign to increase self-sufficiency in corn and other key food crops.”

The groups’ letter on the Mexican policies and U.S. interference—published in English (pdf) and Spanish (pdf)—is addressed to recently confirmed U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai. Its lead author is Kristin Schafer, executive director of Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA).

“We call on Secretary Vilsack and Trade Representative Tai, as key leaders in the new administration, to respect Mexico’s decision to protect both public health and the integrity of Mexican farming,” Schafer said in a statement. “It is completely unacceptable for U.S. public agencies to be doing the bidding of pesticide corporations like Bayer, who are solely concerned with maintaining their bottom-line profits.”

Fernando Bejarano, director of Pesticide Action Network in Mexico, explained that “we are part of the No Maize No Country Campaign, a broad coalition of peasant organizations, nonprofit NGOs, academics, and consumers which support the presidential decree and fight for food sovereignty with the agroecological transformation of agricultural systems that guarantee the right to produce and consume healthy, nutritious food, free of pesticides and transgenics.”

“We reject the pressure from corporations such as Bayer-Monsanto—and their CropLife trade association—which are working in both the United States and Mexico to undermine the presidential decree that phases out the use of glyphosate and transgenic corn,” Bejarano said.

The letter highlights Guardian reporting on U.S. government documents obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity through a Freedom of Information Act request. The documents revealed that CropLife America and Bayer AG—which acquired glyphosate-based herbicide developer Monsanto in 2018—worked with U.S. officials to lobby against Mexico’s plans.

According to journalist Carey Gillam’s mid-February report:

The emails reviewed by the Guardian come from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and other U.S. agencies. They detail worry and frustration with Mexico’s position. One email makes a reference to staff within López Obrador’s administration as “vocal anti-biotechnology activists,” and another email states that Mexico’s health agency (Cofepris) is “becoming a big time problem.”

Internal USTR communications lay out how the agrochemical industry is “pushing” for the U.S. to “fold this issue” into the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) trade deal that went into effect July 1. The records then show the USTR does exactly that, telling Mexico its actions on glyphosate and genetically engineered crops raise concerns “regarding compliance” with USMCA.

Citing discussions with CropLife, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) joined in the effort, discussing in an inter-agency email “how we could use USMCA to work through these issues.”

Full article

May 2, 2021 Posted by | Economics, Environmentalism, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Hancock has blood on his hands – Shocking rise in expectant mothers who’ve lost their baby after having the Covid Vaccine

THE DAILY EXPOSE • APRIL 29, 2021

A tragic milestone has been surpassed as the effects of the mass roll-out of an experimental vaccine continue to devastate the lives of those who “get the jab, when they get the call”. It is with sadness that we have to report that over 100 women have now lost their unborn or newborn baby after having one of the Covid vaccines.

Health authorities in the UK advise women to avoid things like smoked fish, soft cheese, wet paint, coffee, herbal tea, vitamin supplements, and processed junk foods when pregnant. But for some strange and sinister reason they are now adamant the Covid vaccines are 100% safe for use in pregnant women despite the fact there have not been any trials conducted to prove this.

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) released a statement just a few short weeks ago saying “it’s preferable for pregnant women in the UK to be offered the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines where available. There is no evidence to suggest that other vaccines are unsafe for pregnant women, but more research is needed.”

This led to the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock to announce on Twitter – “I encourage all pregnant women when they are called to get the jab”.

The fact the JCVI could say “it is preferable for pregnant women” to have the jab, and “more research is needed” in the same sentence would be laughable if it didn’t have such dire consequences. And the fact Hancock actively encouraged pregnant women to get the jab despite the existing evidence it was not safe is criminal.

Unfortunately but not surprisingly the JCVI and Hancock now have blood on their hands since these statements were made.

Blood on their hands because according to the UK Governments latest report on adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines, as of the 21st April 2021 a total of 58 women had suffered a miscarriage after receiving a dose of the Pfizer / BioNTech mRNA vaccine. But the devastation doesn’t end there. The Pfizer jab had also caused two foetal deaths as of the 21st April, 1 still birth and the death of 1 premature baby.

The AstraZeneca viral vector vaccine is also causing devastation to countless lives. As of the 21st April a total of 37 women had sadly suffered a miscarriage after receiving a dose of the AstraZeneca jab, as well as a total of 3 still births.

These numbers may seem small considering the fact we are told tens of millions of people have now received a dose of an experimental Covid vaccine. But let’s put these figures into context. The Covid jab is only just being offered to those in their early 40’s, which means the majority of those who have been vaccinated so far are over the age of 50. The average age for a woman to reach the menopause is 51. This means they cannot get pregnant and therefore cannot suffer a miscarriage.

But then we also have to consider the fact that up until this ghastly unscientific announcement from the JCVI and Hancock the UK Governments advice on administering the Covid vaccine to pregnant women was as follows –

‘Pregnancy
There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2.
Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine
BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.
For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women
of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.

Taking all of this into account, the 102 expectant mothers who have sadly lost their child after having the Covid vaccine as of the 21st April suddenly becomes an extraordinarily high number.

How many more women need to lose their baby for the health authorities to say enough is enough?

May 2, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Doctors are Paid Massive Bonuses from a Health Insurance Company for Vaccinating Babies

By Alex Pietrowski – Waking Times – August 8, 2017

Here is a perfect example of the tactics that Big Pharma uses to incentivize doctors to push vaccines on the public. Insurance company Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) pays pediatricians $400 for EACH fully vaccinated child under the age of 2. This means that for every 100 vaccinated patients, the doctor gets a $40,000 bonus!

Moreover, it is now very difficult to find a pediatrician who will accept a family who doesn’t vaccinate. Even parents who partially vaccinate or follow a different schedule have a hard time finding a doctor. Here’s why: doctors have to vaccinate a certain percentage of their patients or they don’t get their bonus. BCBS says doctors need to vaccinate 63% of their patients to get the payout.

BCBS outlines the incentive program for vaccinating babies in the BCBS doctor incentives booklet. Below is an image of the childhood immunization incentives page.

The program specifies that patients under the age of 2 must receive 24 inoculations for the doctor to receive the $400 per-patient payout. Notice the list includes the flu vaccine, even though evidence suggests that the flu vaccine actually weakens the immune system long-term. Furthermore, during the 2012-2013 flu season, the flu vaccine’s effectiveness was found to be just 56 percent across all age groups reviewed by the CDC.

Exorbitant Payouts for Vaccinating Babies

So how much money can a doctor make by pushing vaccines on trusting parents? Here’s the breakdown:

The average American pediatrician has 1546 patients, though some pediatricians see many more. The vast majority of those patients are very young, perhaps because children transition to a family physician or stop visiting the doctor at all as they grow up. As they table above explains, Blue Cross Blue Shield pays pediatricians $400 per fully vaccinated child. If your pediatrician has just 100 fully-vaccinated patients turning 2 this year, that’s $40,000. Yes, Blue Cross Blue Shield pays your doctor a $40,000 bonus for fully vaccinating 100 patients under the age of 2. If your doctor manages to fully vaccinate 200 patients, that bonus jumps to $80,000. (source: CongitiveTruths.com )

Doctors Receive Bribes for More Than Vaccinations

The complete BCBS doctor incentives booklet was posted by CognitiveTruths.com here.

The booklet shows that payouts aren’t available just for vaccines. Doctors receive bonuses for making sure that patients “adhere to their prescribed drug therapy.” This falls under BCBS category of “disease management” and includes statins, drugs for hypertension, and oral diabetes medications. Doctors also receive bonuses for helping patients manage depression… but only if they do so using drugs.

These types of practices by the medical establishment give rise to many questions. First, are doctors more concerned about earning their bonus than about children’s health? That would explain why so many doctors are no longer taking families that do not vaccinate. Further, do doctors even care if the one-size-fits-all approach to vaccination is safe?

Finally, if doctors receive payouts for disease management, then why would they want to cure their patients? This approach definitely illustrates the biggest problem of our medical establishment. Let’s face it, the establishment is creating long-term customers instead of curing patients.

You May Also Like:

The Outrageous Ways Big Pharma Has Bribed Doctors to Shill Drugs

May 2, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

UK Gov. awards £320 million tax-payer funded contract for ‘Covid-19 Media Propaganda Campaign’ which runs until April 2022

THE DAILY EXPOSE • MAY 2, 2021

You don’t think things are going to go back to normal on the 21st June 2021 do you? The evidence is mounting to the contrary and the latest piece of the puzzle has cost the British tax-payer £320 million.

Previous pieces of the puzzle have come in the form of a document produced for the UK Government entitled ‘Summary of further modelling of easing of restrictions – Roadmap Step 2’, and a contract currently out for tender for the employment of ‘Covid Marshals’.

The former declares that a third wave is inevitable and that it will be the fault of children and those who refuse the experimental Covid-19 vaccines. Whilst the latter confirms that Covid Marshals will be employed from the 1st July 2021 until the end of January 2022 at the earliest, to the tune of £3 million of tax-payers money.

The latest evidence that things will not be returning to normal on the 21st June 2021 comes in the form of a contract which has been awarded to a single company, costing the British tax-payer £320 million. The contract has a start date of 1st April 2021 and is due to run until the 31st March 2022. It’s stated purpose? “The provision of Media buying services for COVID 19 campaigns.”

The closing date for applications was 12am on the 31st March 2021 and the contract was awarded to ‘OMD Group Limited’. The company is based in London and has a financial director named ‘BELL, Ronald James‘ who has been with the company since the 1st November 2017. But we can also see that there have been three new appointees to the board on the 22nd February 2021. These include FENTON, Laura Claire who has been appointed as CEO. PANESAR, Ravinder who has been appointed as a financial director. And STURGEON, Natalie who has been appointed as CEO.

The three new appointees have certainly struck gold rather quick. We wonder if these people have any ties or links to any members of Boris Johnson’s current Cabinet? Track record would suggest so.

The Government has already spent hundreds of millions of tax payers money since March 2020 to advertise the fact that there is a pandemic and now plan to carry on the tradition for at least another year. The question is, if there was really a deadly pandemic would authorities need to advertise it?

The answer of course lies in the fact that this has never been about a virus, and has always been about control. This £320 million contract is to fund propaganda and maintain the level of fear that they have created in a large amount of the UK population.

The contract also explains why the mainstream media have remained largely silent and toed the line at all times in regards to the narrative being portrayed by the UK Government and their circle of scientific advisors. It would cost them millions of pounds in advertising fees if they refused to do so.

Think things will go back to normal on the 21st June 2021? Think again. This won’t end until we all say it does.

May 2, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

Do anti-depressants work?

By Sebastian Rushworth, M.D. | April 30, 2021

Anti-depressant drugs are common. Very very common. According to the Centers for Disease Control in the United States, 13% of adults reported taking an anti-depressant when surveyed a few years ago. Among women over the age of 60, almost one in four was taking an anti-depressant!

When I work in the hospital, I frequently see elderly people who are on five, ten, fifteen, or even twenty drugs simultaneously. Invariably, one or more of these drugs is an anti-depressant. This absurd overuse of medications, an issue known as polypharmacy, is one of the biggest health problems facing elderly people today. Anti-depressants are one of the main drug classes contributing to polypharmacy.

With so many people taking anti-depressants, you would think that they must at the very least be effective. And safe. Why else would so many millions of people be taking them on a daily basis? Why else would doctors prescribe them so freely?

The most commonly prescribed type of anti-depressant is the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). Examples of this type of drug include sertraline (a.k.a. zoloft), escitalopram (a.k.a. cipralex), and fluoxetine (a.k.a. prozac). SSRI’s increase serotonin signalling in the brain, which is hypothetically a good thing for people who are depressed. They are generally considered to have the best balance of efficacy and safety of any anti-depressant drug, which is why they are the first line therapy.

So, how effective are SSRI’s at treating depression?

A systematic review and meta-analysis was published in BMC Psychiatry in 2017 that sought to answer this question. The review was funded by the Danish government. It identified 131 randomized placebo-controlled trials investigating SSRI’s as a treatment for depression in adults, with a total of 27,422 participants, and meta-analyzed them (i.e. added all their results together to create one big “meta” trial – this gives a more reliable result than the individual trials can provide).

Before we get in to the results, we need to quickly discuss the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HDRS). The HDRS is the scale most commonly used to assess severity of depression in studies, and also to assess how the severity changes over time. It is a 52 point scale, so a score of 52 is as bad as it can get. A score below eight is considered normal (i.e. not depressed). 8 to 13 is considered to be “mild” depression. 14-18 is considered to be “moderate” depression. 19-22 is considered to be “severe” depression, and anything from 23 and up is considered to be “very severe” depression.

The authors of the review decided, before analyzing the data, that anything less than an average reduction of three points on the scale would be considered a negative result. Personally I think that this is a bit generous. I find it hard to believe that anyone would be able to notice a three point reduction on a 52 point scale. I would have set the threshold higher, at more like six points at the very least. One article published back in 2015 came to the conclusion that people are unable to detect anything less than a 7 point difference on the 52 point Hamilton scale. But as we shall soon see, setting the threshold higher wouldn’t have made a difference anyway. So, let’s get to the results.

Overall, SSRI’s resulted in a 1.94 point greater reduction on the 52 point HDRS scale than placebo. Even when only trials of people with very severe depression (a score of 23 or higher) were included, the improvement over placebo was still only 2.69 points.

So, SSRI’s were not able to get over even the generously low bar set by the reviewers. And let’s remember that most of the studies included in the analysis were industry funded, and industry funded studies usually show a bigger benefit than is seen in reality, so it is likely that the real effect is even smaller than was found in the systematic review.

In other words, SSRI’s are not effective as anti-depressants. Considering that they are currently the first line drug therapy for depression, that would seem to be quite a big problem. And before you suggest that we should use non-SSRI anti-depressants instead, like for example tricyclics, I would note that these have not been shown to be markedly more effective than SSRI’s in head-to-head comparisons. Otherwise we’d be using them as the first line therapy, not SSRI’s.

What about safety? Did SSRI’s cause any serious adverse events?

2.7% of participants in the SSRI arm developed a serious adverse event, as compared with 2.1% in the placebo arm. That is a 0.6% absolute difference, which would mean that roughly one in 170 people treated with an SSRI will suffer a serious adverse event as a result of the treatment. Note that the definition of a serious adverse event is an event that causes death, significant risk of death, disability, and/or hospitalization. In other words, “serious” is serious. So even a small increase in serious adverse events is something that needs to be taken quite, well, seriously.

Medical treatments should ideally result in a decrease in serious adverse events. They certainly should not cause an increase. A truly effective anti-depressant would not just make people feel better, it would also make them less likely to try to commit suicide, which would result in an overall reduction in serious adverse events. No such signal was seen here. Even if you look just at suicide attempts, rather than at adverse events overall, there was no signal that SSRI’s decrease their frequency.

Note that the trials in the review were generally of healthy people under 65 years of age. Frail elderly people treated with SSRI’s will likely experience serious adverse events at a much higher rate than that found here.

Speaking of frail elderly people, in particular those living in nursing homes, I want to take the opportunity to point out that they are frequently the heaviest users of anti-depressants. So you would think that there would be a lot of research showing that anti-depressants are useful to give to the frail elderly… Well, having seen that the evidence doesn’t support using anti-depressants in younger people, you might be a bit skeptical by now. A systematic review was published in the Journal of the American Medical Directors Association in 2012, that sought to determine how beneficial anti-depressants are when used as a treatment for depression in people over the age of 65 who are living in nursing homes. The review was funded by the US government.

Two(!) randomized controlled trials were identified that compared anti-depressants with placebo in nursing home residents, with a total of 55(!) participants. It’s pretty shocking that the evidence base is so small, when you consider that nursing home residents are such heavy user of anti-depressants. Basically, when we (doctors) use these drugs on elderly nursing home residents, we have pretty much zero idea what we’re doing, because there is so little evidence.

Neither of the two trials found any benefit to treating nursing home residents with anti-depressants (although to be fair, they were so small that I wouldn’t have expected them to find anything – they were statistically underpowered). The number of participants was far too small to gain any kind of estimate of the prevalence of serious adverse events, although I think it’s fair to assume, as mentioned above, that it would be much higher in this group than in the younger healthier group included in the studies in the previous review.

I’m mainly bringing this tiny systematic review up to illustrate how atrociously small the knowledge base often is when it comes to the effects of drugs on the frail elderly.

What conclusions can we draw these systematic reviews?

Anti-depressant drugs are ineffective against depression. The harms of these drugs clearly outweigh the practically non-existent benefits. That is true for everyone, but especially so for the frail elderly who are at much higher risk of side effects than the general population. In light of this information, which has now been in the public domain for at least a few years, you would expect large campaigns to get doctors to stop prescribing these drugs. Funnily enough, that hasn’t happened yet.

May 2, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

US/Western War on Public Health

By Stephen Lendman | April 30, 2021

The US healthcare industry is misnamed — what more accurately should be called a sickness industry.

Hostile to health Pharma profits from sickness.

Immunization News accused the industry of waging “chemical warfare on humanity.”

Deaths from prescription drugs far exceed numbers from global hot wars.

Over two-thirds of Americans use one or more legal drugs. They all have potential harmful to health side effects.

Their use and misuse is the third leading cause of deaths in the US.

The annual cost of healthcare in the US is around $3.3 trillion — about 20% of GDP.

In October 2020, Forbes magazine reported that “US prescription drug spending exceeds $500 billion a year and is growing at a rate that’s three times faster than inflation.”

Pre-seasonal flu renamed covid, the US was around a $30 billion annual market for vaccines.

Because of covid mass-jabbing with experimental, unapproved, hazardous mRNA technology and vaccines, a Global Vaccine Markets Features and Trends report projects mass-vaxxing will grow $100 billion annually by 2025.

Given what’s going on, perhaps this spending level will be reached by yearend or in 2022.

The US public is being mind-manipulated to falsely believe that health protection comes from a syringe.

Ties between Pharma and US/Western public health agencies are incestuous — serving their interests at the expense of public health, not the other way around.

According to Children’s Health Defense (CHD), “American children have never been sicker with a vast array of chronic illnesses,” explaining:

Over half of US children “had at least one of 20 chronic health conditions.”

US “(l)ife expectancy is falling and infant mortality is rising.”

“US children are 76% more likely to die before their first birthday than infants in other wealthy countries.”

Around half of Americans aged 13 – 18 have been “diagnosed with at least one mental, emotional, and/or behavioral disorder.”

According to the US war department, over two-thirds of youths in the country are unfit for military service “because of obesity, asthma, hearing and eyesight problems and mental illness.”

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. explained the “(t)he greatest crisis that America faces today is the chronic disease epidemic in America’s children.”

Mass-vaxxing plays a leading role in creating illness, not protecting from it, Kennedy’s CHD, explaining:

US “(c)hildren vaccinated according to the standard schedule had significantly more outpatient and emergency department visits than ‘undervaccinated’ children.”

The more vaccines taken, the greater the harm to health.

According to a 2017 study, “vaccinated children had a more than twofold greater odds of having been diagnosed with any chronic illness compared to unvaccinated children, and a roughly fourfold greater odds of a diagnosed neuro-developmental disorder (learning disabilities and/or ADHD and/or ASD), as well as a far greater likelihood of having one or more allergic conditions,” CHD reported.

Noted German microbiologist Sucharit Bhakdi warned that global covid mass-jabbing is “decimating the world’s population” by harming people at the cellular level.

These experimental drugs fail to achieve what’s claimed about them.

They harm and don’t protect.

Almost no one under age-70, without a serious preexisting condition, is at risk of dying from seasonal flu now called covid.

Manipulating people to be unnecessarily jabbed is “unethical (and) criminal,” Bhakdi stressed.

CHD quoted noted pediatrician Michelle Perro, saying “(s)ick is the new normal” for US children today, adding:

It’s “so commonplace that diseases that are indeed dis-eases have become normalized, such as chronic asthma, allergies, gut issues, neurologic issues — ADHD to autism spectrum disorders.”

“And there are many others, obesity, metabolic disturbances and every other disorder is becoming normalized because they are so commonplace.”

Decades earlier children in the US were much healthier than ones today because of proliferated environmental toxins — including hazardous to health GMO foods, ingredients, and drugs, notably in the age of flu now called covid.

Perro stressed that Pfizer and Moderna covid drugs aren’t vaccines, saying:

They’re “genetically produced compounds made with messenger RNA that then tells your DNA what to transcribe.”

“Some of these medical interventions have been created using adenoviruses.”

“Adenoviruses are common infections in kids.”

“That they don’t react with our own DNA is misguided.”

Perro added that “(m)ainstream medicine is outdated and no longer relevant to the dangers facing our children today.”

“(T)he leading cause of children’s demise right now (are) the alterations to the microbiota, the microbiome.”

“We as integrative medicine practitioners, particularly during this particular era in this last year, have been marginalized with our integrative tools.”

“(I)t’s horrific how we’ve been marginalized to kind of promote a single-minded agenda and to discredit those of us that practice holistically.”

“There has been a campaign to discredit and censor our group.”

We’re being lied to and mass deceived by Western governments, their hostile to public health officials, Pharma wanting maximum profits, and media press agents for all of the above.

They want us jabbed and rejabbed with what harms health, not protects it.

Mandating masks and social distancing is all about enforcing draconian social control — unrelated to protecting and preserving health.

Mass-jabbing madness, along with all else mandated and promoted is harmful to health, not beneficial.

Since last year, we’ve been betrayed by diabolical dark forces in the US and West.

They’re hostile to public health, well-being, and safety by pushing a humanly destructive protocol to be rejected, not followed.

May 2, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Is our relationship with the government healthy?

Phill Sacre | April 23, 2021

The government have become such a part of our lives over the last few months, it’s almost like we’ve all entered into another relationship with them. But is that relationship healthy, or is it abusive? And how did we even get here?

The article I refer to from Psychology Today is here: 20 signs your partner is controlling – https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/bl…​

If you’d like to find out more about Christianity, I have a website / YouTube channel called Understand the Bible – Website: https://understandthebible.uk​

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7FH…​

My website: http://phillsacre.me.uk

May 2, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

We Need to Hear Much More About Florida and Texas and Less About the Latest Covid Hotspots

By Will Jones • Lockdown Sceptics • April 30, 2021

Would that journalists and broadcasters paid as much attention to places with no restrictions doing fine as they do to the latest places experiencing a Covid surge.

All eyes are currently on India and especially Delhi where, after a year of little impact, the virus is making its nasty presence felt. But as Ivor Cummins points out, India for whatever reason has a long way to go to catch up with countries in Europe and the Americas when it comes to Covid deaths. The country is not a good comparison for the UK where the virus is endemic and substantial population immunity is now present.

If only our media would spend as much time telling the population about how Florida lifted its restrictions back in September, how South Dakota never had any, and how Texas and Mississippi reopened in full at the start of March, as they do telling us about how many people are in hospital in Delhi. The latest positive-test data for these open states is in the graph above, along with two other light-restriction states, South Carolina and Georgia. Note the conspicuous lack of surge despite being basically back to normal. What more evidence do our politicians and scientists need that the threat from the virus is overblown and does not warrant social restrictions or emergency measures? Is the Government interested in data which contradict their preferred narrative?

The Telegraph today is reporting that as of June 21st – another seven weeks away – Brits will be permitted once again to attend large events without anti-social and uneconomic distancing requirements and hug one another. Our ultra-cautious scientists are advising that these things might just be okay by then. Though in case you might have thought they would then end the seemingly endless state of emergency, they have said measures such as staggering entries to venues accommodating large groups and good ventilation will still be required. What part of normal don’t they understand?

Nor is there any indication of a move to return international travel to normal, as the country faces more limitations on travel this summer – when most of the country is vaccinated – than last summer – when nobody was. What this has to do with following the science is, as ever, unclear.

What’s strange is that even in America where parts of their own country are living free and showing that the measures aren’t needed, state governments, with popular support and backed by federal agencies, just carry on with their restrictions, lifting them only very slowly and with no obvious commitment to bringing them finally to an end. It’s as though people don’t want to know. Too much has been invested in the lockdown narrative, it seems, for people to be able to cope psychologically with the trauma of facing the truth that it is fundamentally false. Too many reputations are at risk. Too many interests coincide.

Are we doomed to live forever in this Covid state of emergency? I confess it is hard to see what will prompt governments to bring it to an end, now that we live in permanent fear of the appearance of variants and believe we must continually top up the whole world’s antibodies through rolling annual programmes of vaccinations. One of the most depressing thoughts is I find it almost impossible to imagine Boris Johnson facing the camera and announcing: “My friends, our ordeal is over. The data is clear. The virus is now one among many hazards with which we daily must live. Vaccines are available to the vulnerable, as are effective treatments, and we will continually strive to find the safest ways to protect those at risk from this and other illnesses. It is time to resume our old lives. I declare the state of emergency to be over.”

Will we ever reach a point where we no longer even think about whether some activity is “Covid secure”? Where we no longer see our fellow human beings as sources of infection? It would be good to hear much more often from the Government that this is where it believes we are headed, sooner rather than later.

May 1, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Doctor defends ‘80 clinical studies’ showing ivermectin ‘89% effective’ at preventing COVID

‘People are trying to scare us from taking ivermectin. It’s one of the safest drugs in the world.’

Life Site News | April 29, 2021

A doctor from the Philippines strongly defended the use of ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19, pointing to “80 clinical studies” which support his arguments, and alluding to “bias” and conflicts of interest, which have led medical bodies to be reluctant about promoting the drug.

Appearing on Philippine television channel ABS–CBN, Dr. Benigno Agbayani answered a range of questions about the efficacy and safety of the drug, as well as the peculiar reticence to recommend it for treating COVID-19.

Agbayani, the president of Concerned Doctors and Citizens of the Philippines, revealed that since last year, he had spent over five hours a day studying scientific literature on all things pertaining to COVID-19, including the non-effectiveness of lockdowns. “I think I’ve read more than anyone on COVID-19,” he stated.

However, Agbayani did not spend long defending his medical credentials, but instead advocated the use of ivermectin by referring to the wealth of scientific studies with which he was by now very familiar. He already prescribed ivermectin to over 300 of his own patients, but despite the success he has experienced so far, Agbayani stated that he looks “at the success rate of studies, rather than my personal experience, because that’s where I base my recommendations.”

“As much as anecdotal [pieces of evidence] are good, and we have many, I really prefer that we stick to the science,” he said. “People are trying to scare us from taking ivermectin. It’s one of the safest drugs in the world.”

Mentioning a study from September 2020, Agbayani stated that ivermectin had been shown to actually block “the receptor sites of the virus onto our cells, therefore blocking it from ever getting to the cell.”

“You have over 26, as of today, randomized control trials showing effectiveness, even as high as 89% for prevention, and as high as 80% for treatment. So I think regardless of what the other groups are doing, you have so much science behind it, I do not see why we have to be so concerned.”

Some studies mentioned ivermectin in conjunction with accompanying treatments, but Agbayani noted that even with this, it was possible to prove the effectiveness of ivermectin on its own. Pointing to the evidence found by Dr. Tess Lawrie, Agbayani explained that the drugs accompanying ivermectin in the studies were there, “but not all the time,” and that they “have already been proven not to work, so if you have two drugs given with ivermectin, and one drug doesn’t work, then you have to conclude that it must be ivermectin,” which produces the result.

He alluded to the peculiar antagonism which has been levied against ivermectin, noting how scepticism regarding studies promoting ivermectin is not mirrored with other drugs: “[T]he same thing can be said of every drug that we tried. Even people who are taking remdesevir, they also try other drugs, and yet you don’t question that.”

Continuing, he noted that “most” of the drugs accompanying ivermectin in the trials were “not even anti-virus [drugs], most of them are supportive of your immune systems.”

“There are 80 clinical studies [about the use of ivermectin]. If the 80 clinical studies show positive response, and maybe about 2% only showing no response to ivermectin, in clinical studies, of the doses that we give, I think that should be enough proof that it works.”

Drawing once more on the scientific data, Agbayani promoted ivermectin both as a prophylactic, and as a treatment once infected with COVID-19. Conclusions drawn from “at least 12 clinical studies,” of which 3 were randomized, controlled trials, revealed “an 89% rate of preventing COVID-19.”

Global Reluctance Regarding Ivermectin

Yet despite this, medical bodies have been consistently reluctant to promote the use of ivermectin, with Big Tech even weighing in and deleting videos which defended the drug. Thanks to the efforts of the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) upgraded their recommendation for the “miraculous” drug ivermectin, making it an option for use in treating COVID-19 within the United States, but only since January.

Agbayani suggested two reasons for the global reticence regarding the drug. Dealing first with the NIH, he suggested that “the NIH, the U.S. I mean, just needs to update their data. I think the last time they gave an update was February. They said it could be useful, it may not be useful.”

But he also mentioned that there was some deliberate avoidance at properly promoting ivermectin, commenting on how the World Health Organization’s March 3 recommendation of the drug did not include preventative use, but “only mentioned treatment and for severe cases. For severe cases and early treatment.”

“They did not include prophylaxis, because I think they’re afraid to recommend it, that’s why they did not make a comment,” he continued. “If you look at the way they studied it, they did include so many other studies … there seems to be a bias in those recommendations and we feel that they do not want to look at certain studies preferentially, and this was observed even before this recent announcement.”

“There is some kind of bias going on that we’d like to question. This is the time in our history when we should look at conflicts of interest.”

Such a conflict of interest could exist in the vaccine company Merck, Agbayani added, in answer to why the company even issued a statement advising against the use of ivermectin for COVID, despite having developed it some 30 years prior. This was an “excellent example of conflict of interest,” stated Agbayani.

“Merck is coming out with a new drug for the early treatment of COVID-19. How can Merck make money out of ivermectin, if the patents already expired in 1996, so even if it tries that, I don’t think they’ll make money at all, when so many other companies are making ivermectin. So they have to put their mouth on their research expenses on their new drug.”

Despite Merck joining other vaccine companies in pushing out speedily developed new drugs, ivermectin was still being side-lined, although it has been “used for 25 years,” said Agbayani. Even taking a dose, “ten times” the NIH daily recommended amount, would “have no [side] effect.”

“Compare that to other drugs that we are now using that are fairly new, where you are getting so many reports of side effects. So it’s really amazing that people still say it’s an unsafe drug when it’s been used for 25 years, over 3.7 billion doses have been given.”

Dr. Agbayani is by no means alone in his promotion of ivermectin for treating and preventing COVID-19.

Back in December, intensive care specialist Dr. Pierre Kory, a founding member of the FLCCC, delivered an impassioned address to the Senate Homeland Security Committee, defending the “miraculous effectiveness of ivermectin,” and stating that it “basically obliterates transmission of this virus.”

“It literally destroys the virus in most people within 48 hours,” agreed fellow panelist Dr. Jean-Jacques Rajter, whose peer-reviewed study found 60% fewer deaths among patients given the drug.

In fact, the efficacy of ivermectin with regard to COVID-19 was already hinted at in April 2020, when researchers in Australia pointed to a dramatic effect the drug had on the virus. “We showed that a single dose of Ivermectin could kill COVID-19 in a petri dish within 48 hours, indicating potent antiviral activity,” stated Dr. David Jans, a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Monash University in Melbourne.

Even after just 24 hours, “there was a really significant reduction” in the virus, added Dr. Kylie Wagstaff, a senior research fellow in biochemistry and molecular biology at Monash University.

May 1, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Update on EU’s Vaccine Passport Scheme

By Toby Young • Principia Scientific • April 29, 2021

We have an update today on yesterday’s vote in the European Parliament, which essentially waved through the Commission’s plans to roll out a vaccine passport scheme across the EU, which we covered yesterday. This is a guest post from a source within the EU.

In Brussels yesterday the European Parliament adopted a negotiating position on the Commission’s Digital Green Certificate proposal. 575 MEPs voted for a compromise text, with 80 against and 40 abstentions.

Voting took place remotely after three hours of speeches to a mostly empty chamber.

The Commission’s desire to create a universal system of health check points within the EU was apparent before the Plenary Session. During the debate it became increasingly clear that these checks will be taking place beyond Member State borders.

MEPs were resigned to passing the Regulation in order to “return to normal” even if it “puts Schengen at stake”.

Voter concerns that European society would be divided were occasionally relayed, usually as a prefix to a bald statement that the DGC would neither discriminate nor function as a pass for entry into Member States.

A handful of MEPs asked to examine the Proposal more critically.

With Parliament’s approval – and the three EU Institutions already in alignment – negotiations between Commission, Council and Parliament on the final text will be a mere formality.

We can expect the rubberstamp by June, ushering in a sophisticated and probably enduring system of health checks across Europe, enhanced by the draconian Passenger Locator Form, also on its way to becoming law.

May 1, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | | Leave a comment

Most US & UK businesses to REQUIRE at least some employees to get vaccinated against Covid-19, poll shows

© ASU Workplace Commons / rockefellerfoundation.org

RT | May 1, 2021

Many Americans and Brits will face de facto vaccine mandates, as a new poll shows that 56% of businesses will require at least some employees to be inoculated against Covid-19, in many cases under threat of losing their jobs.

The poll, which was conducted by Arizona State University and released on Thursday, showed that 40% of businesses will require all employees to be vaccinated against Covid-19, while 16% will mandate the jabs for at least some of their workers. All told, 88% of businesses will require or encourage their employees to be vaccinated, and 60% said they will demand some kind of proof of inoculation.

The survey, which was backed by the Rockefeller Foundation, paints a bleak picture for those who plan to resist getting the Covid-19 jabs. While the US and UK governments have refrained from making vaccines mandatory – and facing legal challenges that might ensue – the private sector may effectively do it for them. Businesses are already setting the stage to require so-called ‘vaccine passports,’ forcing customers to show proof of inoculation or a negative Covid test before accessing certain goods, services and events.

While many people can choose not to travel abroad or go to business venues that require proof of vaccination, an employer mandate could be more problematic. Arizona State said 31% of businesses plan to take disciplinary action, including possibly firing employees who refuse to comply with their vaccine policies.

A further 44% said non-compliant employees won’t be allowed to return to the workplace, while 27% said they will change the work responsibilities of those who fail to obey. Only 15% said there will be no consequences, even though the vaccines are being administered under emergency authorizations and so far lack the long-term study needed for full regulatory approval.

The survey was conducted at 1,168 companies, mostly large businesses with 250 or more employees based in the US and UK. The average business in the poll still has 57% of employees working remotely. About 75% expect workers to be back on site within the next one to six months, but 72% said they plan to offer more flexible work-from-home policies after the pandemic.

Employee wellbeing has suffered greatly during the pandemic. Nearly 58% of businesses said their concerns over employee mental health have increased, while 52% were more concerned about worker engagement. Other troubling issues included Covid-19’s impact on burnout, productivity and morale.

May 1, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , | Leave a comment

Twitter isn’t censoring accounts to keep users ‘safe’, but to spoon-feed establishment narratives

By Eva Bartlett | RT | April 30, 2021

It’s one thing to have policies against violence, abuse, and harassment. But in “protecting” users, Twitter is hell-bent on censoring voices that rock the boat, even when all they have tweeted is a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

Last week, Simon Goddek, who has a PhD in biotechnology and researches system dynamics, tweeted a link to a scientific study titled, “Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?”

Some time later, his account was frozen and he received a notice from Twitter that it would remain frozen until he deleted the offending tweet, and for the 12 hours following that.

In his Telegram group, he wrote:

“I was put into Twitter jail for citing a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Cancel science is real.

“What’s especially concerning is that I didn’t make any personal comment on the paper’s content. I only said that regarding that paper, masks CAN lead to massive health damages. It’s the conclusion of a scientific piece of work that has been peer-reviewed by at least 2 experts in the field.”

According to Twitter, Goddek violated their policy on, “spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to Covid-19.”

The article in question wasn’t even as risqué as others and merely addressed undesirable side effects of mask wearing. How is that “misinformation”?

I spoke with Goddek to learn more about what happened. Turns out, it’s not the first time.

“The first time I got censored because I cited a scientific, peer-reviewed paper on masks. I was just citing their work, and I got put into Twitter jail. In that tweet, I was saying, ‘Look, it seems masks don’t work.’  So, I also said my opinion.

“This time, I found another study on masks, which says there are adverse effects if you wear masks. So, I was citing the paper without putting my own opinion, and they censored me again, made me delete it and put me into Twitter jail again.”

On April 17, Naomi Wolf tweeted she had been locked out of Twitter for the fourth time for sharing a Stanford study, “proving the lack of efficacy of masks.” That study was also peer-reviewed.

This isn’t merely a case of Twitter deciding that Goddek and Wolf were not in the position to be discussing the efficacy or dangers of masks. Twitter is censoring pretty much anything about Covid that doesn’t match the narrative promoted by the WHO, CDC, and other such bodies.

Even a well-known epidemiologist has faced Twitter’s wrath. An article in the American Institute for Economic Research noted:

“Harvard Professor Martin Kulldorff and co-creator of the Great Barrington Declaration, one of the most cited epidemiologists and infectious -disease experts in the world has been censored by Twitter. His tweet on how not everyone needs a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 was not taken down. He had a warning slapped on it and users have been prevented from liking or retweeting the post.”

That article also emphasized:

“Dr. Kulldorff serves on the Covid-19 vaccine safety subgroup that the CDC, NIH, and FDA rely upon for technical expertise on this very subject.”

On April 10, a group called Drs4CovidEthics tweeted:

“Not a month on Twitter & we were locked out of our account, forced to delete our pinned tweet. We must self-censor or be banned says Twitter (paraphrasing) We mustn’t contradict official sources. But our letters contradict official sources. With good reason. Which we can’t tweet.”

What do they know better than Twitter censors? They’re merely “doctors & scientists from 25+ countries, including heads of ICU, world leading immunologists, experts in public health, drug safety, respiratory illness, GPs, researchers in vaccines, pharmacology, virology, biochemistry…”

I searched for more examples of extreme Twitter censorship and found further censorship of vaccine related information, and one person’s hypothesis on why vaccine talk is so particularly taboo: “$157 billion buys a lot of Facebook and Twitter bans.”

The popular independent website Off Guardian recently was locked out of Twitter for sharing one of its own articles on Covid vaccines, they told me.

In fact, Twitter has been censoring Off Guardian for at least a year. When users try to open a tweet to an Off Guardian article, they are met with a warning that the link could be potentially spammy or unsafe.

The warning continues with a large blue button advising to return to the previous page, and a teeny tiny “continue” on to the article option. Same thing for the independent Canadian website Global Research.

Last year, I tried to tweet an article written by respected journalist F. William Engdahl for New Eastern Outlook (NEO). Twitter wouldn’t allow me to even tweet it, instead giving me an error message about the link being “potentially harmful.”

And it’s not only matters of Covid. Just now, I tried to tweet another NEO article, not related to Covid, and was again met with the same message.

A Twitter account focusing on the propaganda around Xinjiang had his account suspended.

And when the New York Post wrote exposés about Hunter Biden’s emails, Twitter locked the Post’s account.

Which makes it all the more clear this isn’t about “facts” or “safety” but blatant censorship.

Whether or not you agree with a point or comment being made by one of the people censored by Twitter, we should be allowed to access their perspective, research for ourselves and come to our own conclusions. We don’t need Twitter to hold our hands and spoon-feed us establishment narratives.

Twitter’s “rules” page reads:

“Twitter’s purpose is to serve the public conversation. Our rules are to ensure all people can participate in the public conversation freely and safely.”

If you believe that, as the saying goes, I have a bridge to sell you.

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist and activist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine (where she lived for nearly four years).

May 1, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »