US Surgeon General advises “clear consequences” for online “misinformation super-spreaders”
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim the Net | July 16, 2021
The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has released its general Covid advisory on “confronting health misinformation” signed by US Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy.
We obtained a copy of the report for you here.
For the purposes of the advisory, health misinformation is defined as information that is false, inaccurate, or misleading “according to the best available evidence at the time.”
And among those who are urged and given suggestions on how to act to suppress this kind of information are technology platforms, who are advised to devise “clear consequences” for users who are branded as “misinformation super-spreaders.”
Technology platforms are told to assess the benefits and harms of their platforms and products, and then “take responsibility for addressing the harms.”
And those who are found to be “super-spreaders” and “repeat offenders” in posting misinformation should be faced with “clear consequences” that tech platforms are supposed to devise and impose on their users.
Tech companies are also expected to commit to long-term investments for the purpose combating misinformation that can include changing their products – such as redesigning recommendation algorithms. The idea here is to tweak these algorithms so that unwanted medical information is down ranked and difficult to discover.
The surgeon general also wants tech platforms to put more “frictions” in place – like labels and warnings that now appear on many social media posts in order to dissuade users from interacting with the content in question, or direct them towards “trusted sources.”
Next, unspecified researchers should be given access to Big Tech’s data so that they can learn “what people see and hear, not just what they engage with.” Another reason is for “researchers” to be sure how platforms are moderating and censoring content – some methods mentioned are labeling, removing, and downranking.
Privacy is also paid lip service in a remark that says user data “can be” anonymized while provided with user consent – but the advisory is not explicit that this “must be” the case.
And not all medical (mis)information is happening in English, so these US platforms are recommended to “increase staffing of multilingual content moderation teams and improve the effectiveness of machine learning algorithms in languages other than English.”
The advisory also wants platforms to amplify, i.e. direct users even more aggressively towards “trusted and credible sources” and those who are accepted as experts.
Then there’s – as the advisory phrased it – the “unintended consequences” of censorship. And that’s not about free speech suppression or anything similar – it’s “migration of users to less-moderated platforms.”
And that is another thing, the US surgeon general writes, that tech platforms should “work to understand.”
AUSTRALIA: DON’T TELL PEOPLE THEY’RE SCREWED IF VAXX MAKES THEM SICK
https://www.bitchute.com/video/7iApRiu3DtjS/
June 28, 2021
Secret video of senate meeting with head of TGA Brendan Murphy telling Parliament to not tell the public of their own vaccine effects coverup and that the vaccine kills people and they have no recourse from it because the government granted big pharma immunity from prosecution and compensation payouts!
Bill Gates’s stranglehold on the MSM: Part 2 – Britain

By Karen Harradine | The Conservative Woman | July 16, 2021
WITH an estimated fortune of $128.9billion, Bill Gates is the fourth richest man in the world, after Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Bernard Arnault and Elon Musk, according to Forbes.
He’s stepped back from the day-to-day running of Microsoft, the company he founded in 1975, and focuses on his so-called philanthropy through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (GF), and is best known for his worldwide vaccination and anti-malaria programmes.
Less widely known is that he has spent hundreds of millions bankrolling news outlets, in the process turning the GF into one of journalism’s main gatekeepers. According to Tim Schwab of Columbia Journalism Review, by last June more than $250million had gone to news operations including the BBC, NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublica, National Journal, the Guardian, the Financial Times, Univision, Medium, the Atlantic, the Texas Tribune, Gannett, Washington Monthly, Le Monde, and the Center for Investigative Reporting; and to charitable organisations affiliated with news outlets, like the BBC’s Media Action and the New York Times’s Neediest Cases Fund.
As I reported in Part One of this investigation, most of this funding comes under the fine sounding GF heading of Global Policy and Advocacy, of which the BBC is a major beneficiary. Little wonder that there is little that is dispassionate about its reporting on Covid-19 vaccination or climate change.
It’s not just the BBC that the GF manipulates through these means. Between 2016 and 2020, the Financial Times received $2.3million from the GF, including $1.3million to fund ‘global health awareness’. The Guardian is another recipient of Mr Gates’s largesse. Like the BBC, it sports a ‘Global Development’ site, the common root being GF funding. Its claimed editorial independence is contradicted by its stated sole campaigning purpose to provide special focus on the Millennium Development Goals, eight targets set in 2000 by the United Nations Millennium Declaration. The Guardian has bought into this to the extent that it operates mainly as a deferential PR channel for both the UN and the GF.
The collaboration with the GF to ‘help focus the world’s attention on global development’ goes back 11 years. This is a sophisticated propaganda exercise to convince the public of the beneficial nature of Gates’s investments in a multitude of global development projects including vaccines and solutions for climate change. It helps ensure that any alternative narrative or critique is unlikely to see the light of day in any of the outlets to which he extends his munificence.
Since August 2011, the GF has given the Guardian $12.2million towards this, the latest grant being almost $2million last September. The Guardian has not only busily promoted the Millennium Development Goals, but also its spawn, the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, yet another dishonest scheme to take guilt money from Western taxpayers and give it to the world’s despots and dictators, all in the name of climate change.
Yet, as I have previously set out: ‘Very little information is available on exactly how the money is invested and who benefits from it. No information is offered to indicate if it has been cost-effective and beneficial to the economies and welfare of the 193 countries signed up to it.’
The British public have been drip-fed this propaganda for years through various GF-funded MSM mouthpieces such as the BBC. Yet it’s the economically fragile West which pays for the 2030 Agenda and its climate change ‘remedies’, draining it of even more of its resources while authoritarian regimes like China benefit financially and increase their dominance over the UN. The MSM barely protests.
The worry is that the GF has not only captured the Left-wing media in Britain: it has also made inroads into the so-called Centre and Right. The Telegraph accepted $3.4million from the GF in November 2017 to ‘raise awareness’ of global health issues. The London Evening Standard was awarded money in the same year too, receiving $20,000 to spread the GF propaganda on the ‘global health crisis’.
The growing financial dependence of the MSM on a combination of Government advertising and GF largesse has already put its impartiality in jeopardy. This is threatened further by the GF’s funding of a global network of young ‘journalists’. This project, called the International Centre of Journalists, has been given $20.4million to promote ‘public awareness’ around global health. Based in the US, the organisation finances activists to promote ‘better governments’ and make ‘communities safer and healthier’, amongst other woke ideals. Their 2020 annual review predictably emphasises the need to highlight racial injustice and climate change, and combat ‘disinformation’ about Covid-19.
As Robert Kennedy Junior says, Gates’s press bribes have paid off. ‘During the pandemic, bought and brain-dead news outlets have treated Bill Gates as a public health expert despite his lack of medical training or regulatory experience.’
Gates also funds an army of independent fact checkers including the Poynter Institute and Gannett which, Kennedy points out, use their platforms to silence detractors and to debunk as ‘false conspiracy theories’ and ‘misinformation’ charges that Gates has championed and invested in sinister endeavours like biometric chips, vaccine passports and satellite systems.
Yet all the evidence is available at a click of a mouse button. Last March, Gates began his vaccine passport campaign. The GF-funded Guardian and the BBC have unquestionably cheered on this digital slavery. In 2018, Gates gave a satellite start-up $1billion to build a system which broadcasts real-time videos globally. What better way to ensure that the little people are behaving themselves than by funding a satellite system to monitor us all? Despite the vehement denials of the GF funded ‘fact checkers’, Gates has built his Covid-19 vaccine factories, and seemingly now seeks a return on his investments.
Many lament the decline of journalistic standards in our New Dark Age. Of those responsible for turning a once-brilliant British media into an uncritical disseminator of propaganda, the GF must be placed centre stage. Now the MSM, like the Government, are often nothing more than useful idiots for the GF and its destructive policies, mindlessly chanting the GF narrative on development, climate change and Covid-19; and whose ‘solutions’ to these are destroying the free and prosperous West.
Don’t expect our MSM journalists to protest: they have long since been bought, paid for and brainwashed.
Compelling Case Against COVID ‘Vaccine’ Approval
By Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn | NOQ Report | July 16, 2021
When I read this headline, I connected to the current struggle by many medical experts urging FDA to hold off granting full approval to COVID vaccines: “US ranks last among 46 countries in trust in media.”
Here are some disturbing details. The United States ranks last in media trust — at 29% — among 92,000 news consumers surveyed in 46 countries, a report found. That’s worse than Poland, worse than the Philippines, worse than Peru and far worse that Finland that leads at 65%. We must use alternative news websites like this one and podcasts to get the truth.
There is no better reason for Americans to distrust mainstream and corporate social media than the combination of propaganda for COVID vaccines and holding back key information on what medical experts for several months have been doing in their fight against full approval of them. We are in a corrupt world of vaccine fanaticism.
This article lays out the case against granting full approval and why pro-approval shills use big media endlessly.
Understanding the Approval Battle
This is a classic battle between good and evil. On the good side are medical articles and petitions to FDA to stop the COVID vaccine public health disaster by better assuring safety. On the evil side are big drug companies and big media arguing that there is no time to waste. In their world view until full FDA approval happens many people will justify avoiding getting jabbed. That ignores medical freedom giving people the right to decide what medicine or vaccine to take.
What should greatly trouble Americans is that at least 7,000 deaths have been connected to COVID vaccines and about 500,000 injuries have also resulted. Sure, compared to millions of vaccinated people these number may not seem critically important. Unless you or your family have been negatively impacted. To see reality, you have to read the stories of the many thousands of people who have suffered terrible health impacts from being jabbed. Often very young people. None of these nightmares are covered by big media.
There are three things that pro approval articles stay away from mentioning or seriously analyzing that reveal gross bias and dishonesty.
- First, one word rarely seen in big media stories pushing for full FDA approval is the word “experimental” to describe currently used COVID vaccines allowed under an emergency use authorization.
- Second, the enormous number of frightful stories of serious health impacts from getting vaccinated are avoided like the proverbial plague. To see detailed stories, go to Health Impact News.
- Third, there is no mention of major medical reports and major petitions to FDA by very credible health experts that demand more serious studies by FDA of a multitude of safety issues and concerns.
All three of these should make Americans seriously doubt the integrity of the FDA and its supporters. All that pro-approval entities embrace is getting more people vaccinated and the dubious claim that artificial immunity obtained from vaccines gets all the credit for better looking COVID cases and deaths. Left out is acknowledgement of the benefits of natural immunity for about half the population obtained from being infected by the COVID virus without, in nearly all cases, any serious health harm.
Below I will briefly indicate what pro-approval people and media are saying. Then, more importantly, I will provide coverage of a number of very important reports and petitions by medical experts trying to inform the public why FDA should seriously examine many safety issues and concerns about the COVID vaccines before giving full approval. For about two months, big media has kept all these hidden from public view. Keep in mind that this aspect of the cancel culture is also aimed at preventing attention to the various early home/outpatient treatments to cure and prevent COVID infection. These are a legitimate alternative to vaccines. They are described in detail in Pandemic Blunder and a new review of ivermectin use.
Pro-Approval Propaganda
The most significant big media propaganda was a July 1 opinion article in the New York Times : “It’s Time for the F.D.A. to Fully Approve the mRNA Vaccines” by the biggest shill for approval Dr. Eric Topol of Scripps Research who has served on multiple FDA advisory committees.
Much more was not revealed about him and his objectivity. In 2016, Topol received $207 million from NIH in addition to other grants of $35 million and $17 million from NIH. In August 2020 he publicly criticized FDA’s emergency use authorization of hydroxychloroquine. He has had financial involvement in six companies, including Walgreens and Quest Diagnostics. He is Editor-in-Chief of Medscape, a publication that has not revealed all the disturbing facts about COVID vaccines, as given below.
Interestingly, in 2020 Topol revealed his “liberal” political position when he was big media’s go-to guy for months for “authoritative” medical objections to Trump’s program to rapidly produce COVID vaccines. His argument was that, if it is fast — that is, a crash program — it is suspect. In September, Topol led a campaign accusing FDA head Stephen Hahn of being a tool of Trump in the push for a vaccine, and calling upon him to resign.
Topol is pure “establishment.” Like Fauci, he is a physician that the public should not trust.
His current biggest claim or assertion is this: “vaccines have overwhelmingly been proved safe and effective by clinical trials, independent research and the experience of millions of people around the world who received them.” Understand this: a great many medical experts totally disagree with this. And if you choose to check out what I give below, so will you.
And here is the mainstay of approval proponents. “Some people… are waiting for full F.D.A. approval before they receive a shot. Others may not get immunized unless their employers require it, and many organizations —including, reportedly, the military —are waiting for the vaccines to be fully approved before instituting such mandates.” Meantime everywhere you look there is coercion to get the jab.
Here are views from two other pro approval shills: “Gigi Gronvall, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, said that while there should not be “political pressure” on the FDA, “I would be interested in knowing what the holdup is. It could have a big impact on people getting [vaccinated] if it is FDA approved,” she said. “I think it’s worth asking why it hasn’t happened yet.” You will get answers below.
Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, on the wrong side of all pandemic issues, was more direct. “1 out of 3 American adults still unvaccinated. Data is in. Vaccines are safe and effective. It’s time for full approval.” No, it is not. This guy has been wrong on all pandemic issues and is a favorite of Democrat media.
The position of approval advocates is explained by this: “A Kaiser Family Foundation poll in May found that about a third of unvaccinated people — 32 percent — said they would be more likely to get the shots if a vaccine received full approval. That was a higher percentage than those saying paid time off, a free ride to the vaccination site, or getting $100 from the state would make them more likely to get vaccinated.” I say that if more people became informed about what is given below, they would become even more disinclined.
A Yahoo news story invoked fear about the Delta variant and had this to say: “Now that the Delta coronavirus variant is posing a serious risk to unvaccinated Americans, some experts are calling for the Food and Drug Administration to fully approve the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, which are currently being used under emergency use authorization. Vaccine holdouts are potentially at great risk of contracting the Delta variant, which is quickly becoming dominant in the United States. But Americans who have received the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines are extremely unlikely to get sick from Delta or any other coronavirus variant.” That last statement ignores considerable data about breakthrough infections in vaccinated people.
It also ignores some important new data on Delta. Here are the details: “A briefing from Public Health England (PHE) shows that as a hospital patient, you are six times more likely to die of the COVID Delta variant if you are fully vaccinated, than if you are not vaccinated at all. The information shows up for confirmed Delta cases from February 1, 2021, to June 7, 2021. Of 33,206 Delta variant cases admitted to the hospital, 19,573 were not vaccinated. Of those, 23 (or 0.1175%) died… Of the 1,785 patients who had both vaccine doses 14 days or more before admission, 12 (or 0.6722%) died. This death rate is 5.72 times higher than that for unvaccinated patients.”
Yahoo also said “billions of people worldwide have now been vaccinated without any complications, a sure sign… that they are ‘incredibly safe.’” That is a boldface lie. Hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries have resulted from vaccinations.
Recently Dr. Peter Marks, the vaccine chief at FDA said this: “But after hundreds of millions of vaccine doses administered around the world — and intense safety monitoring — few serious risks have been identified.” This is a lie. At the same time CDC reported to FDA a total of 704 serious adverse events among younger people age 12 to 25 through May 31, defined as death, life-threatening illness, hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization, permanent disability, congenital anomaly or birth defect. In fact, there were 14 reports of death and 216 cases of heart inflammation after first dose (age 12 to 94) and 573 (age 14 to 87) after second dose—also known as myocarditis or pericarditis.
Strong Case Against Approval
Now let’s get to the most important information, the case for full approval dissenters. Unlike the pro side, big media has successfully blocked public access to the following.
In early May the headline was “57 leading scientists, doctors, and public policy experts call for IMMEDIATE HALT to Covid vaccine programs.” A medical article was published with this title: “SARS-CoV-2 mass vaccination: Urgent questions on vaccine safety that demand answers from international health agencies, regulatory authorities, governments and vaccine developers.” This was the main perspective: “The lack of thorough testing in animals prior to clinical trials, and authorization based on safety data generated during trials that lasted less than 3.5 months, raise questions regarding the safety of these vaccines.”
This too was noted: “Despite calls for caution, the risks of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have been minimized or ignored by health organizations and government authorities. We appeal to the need for a pluralistic dialogue in the context of health policies, emphasizing critical questions that require urgent answers if we wish to avoid a global erosion of public confidence in science and public health.”
On the critical issue of vaccination for children this was emphasized: “There is a lack of scientific justification for subjecting healthy children to experimental vaccines, given that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that they have a 99.997% survival rate if infected with SARS-CoV-2. Not only is COVID-19 irrelevant as a threat to this age group, but there is no reliable evidence to support vaccine efficacy or effectiveness in this population or to rule out harmful side effects of these experimental vaccines. In this sense, when physicians advise patients on the elective administration of COVID-19 vaccination, there is a great need to better understand the benefits and risk of administration, particularly in understudied groups.”
This is how the report ends: “We are convinced that humanity deserves a deeper understanding of the risks than what is currently touted as the official position. An open scientific dialogue is urgent and indispensable to avoid erosion of public confidence in science and public health and to ensure that the WHO and national health authorities protect the interests of humanity during the current pandemic. Returning public health policy to evidence-based medicine, relying on a careful evaluation of the relevant scientific research, is urgent. It is imperative to follow the science.” If only Fauci would listen.
Instead, we get the usual garbage talk from him. Fauci said during a White House Covid-19 briefing recently that it would be “most unusual for the FDA to refuse full approval for coronavirus vaccines being used under emergency use authorization. You never want to get ahead of the FDA, but it would really be a most unusual situation not to see this … get full approval. I believe it’s going to happen.” He clearly is not paying any attention to the many experts fighting full approval.
In early June an urgent British report called for complete cessation of COVID vaccines in humans. The big conclusion was that the British regulatory agency like the FDA “has more than enough evidence … to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans. It is now apparent that these [vaccine] products in the blood stream are toxic to humans. An immediate halt to the vaccination programme is required whilst a full and independent safety analysis is undertaken to investigate the full extent of the harms, which [regulatory] suggest include thromboembolism, multisystem inflammatory disease, immune suppression, autoimmunity and anaphylaxis, as well as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE).”
Also, in early June a very important petition to FDA by 27 medical experts made these critical points in a published article: “Why we petitioned the FDA to refrain from fully approving any covid-19 vaccine this year.” “We are part of a group of clinicians, scientists, and patient advocates who have lodged a formal “Citizen Petition” with the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), asking the agency to delay any consideration of a “full approval” of a covid-19 vaccine.
The message of our petition is “slow down and get the science right—there is no legitimate reason to hurry to grant a license to a coronavirus vaccine. We believe the existing evidence base—both pre- and post-authorization—is simply not mature enough at this point to adequately judge whether clinical benefits outweigh the risks in all populations.”
“The covid-19 vaccines in widespread use have emergency authorizations (EUA), not actual approvals, a crucial regulatory distinction that reflects major differences in the level of regulatory scrutiny and certainty about the risk-benefit balance.”
“We also call on FDA to require a more thorough assessment of spike proteins produced in-situ by the body following vaccination—including studies on their full biodistribution, pharmacokinetics, and tissue-specific toxicities. We ask the FDA to demand manufacturers complete proper biodistribution studies that would be expected of any new drug and request additional studies to better understand the implications of mRNA translation in distant tissues.
We call on data demonstrating a thorough investigation of all serious adverse events reported to pharmacovigilance systems, carried out by independent, impartial individuals, and for safety data from individuals receiving more than two vaccine doses, in consideration of plans for future booster shots. We ask the FDA to request necessary studies in specific populations, including those previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, pediatric subjects, and those with immunological or other underlying medical complexities. Given the nature of the novel vaccine platforms, our petition asks for experts in gene therapy to be included among the external committee advising the FDA.”
Here is a very important contribution by this petition which is the invalid reason to approve the COVID vaccines. “To bolster public confidence. Like mandates, approving a medical product in order to bolster public confidence is backward logic and is outside the FDA’s purview. Approving before substantial evidence that population-based evidence of clinical effectiveness is superior to harms may contribute to public wariness and hesitancy, not only about COVID-19vaccines, but other vaccines and public health authorities more broadly. An approval may bolster public confidence, but it is not a valid reason to approve.
A key signatory to this petition is the highly regarded Dr. Peter McCullough who said this: “US experts have expressed grave concerns over the safety of the mRNA and adenoviral COVID-19 vaccines. These products trick the body into an uncontrolled biologic frenzy and produce the dangerous Wuhan spike protein, which is the product of bioterrorism research from the Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China… the products are not sufficiently safe nor effective for full FDA approval. Many open, unanswered questions surrounding the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines must be answered before the FDA considers granting a full approval. “
Yet another petition to FDA was submitted in mid-May by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Dr. Meryl Nass, an esteemed medical expert, on behalf of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), asking the agency to immediately revoke the Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for COVID vaccines and to refrain from licensing [approving] them.
Two of the most respected pandemic experts, UCLA Geffen School of Medicine Dr. Joseph Lapado and Yale School of Public Health Dr. Harvey Risch wrote this in a key Wall Street Journal article: “Another reversal in thinking may be imminent. Some scientists have raised concerns that the safety risks of Covid-19 vaccines have been underestimated. But the politics of vaccination has relegated their concerns to the outskirts of scientific thinking—for now. The large clustering of certain adverse events immediately after vaccination is concerning, and the silence around these potential signals of harm reflects the politics surrounding Covid-19 vaccines. Stigmatizing such concerns is bad for scientific integrity and could harm patients,” they continued.
They also noted: “Prior research has shown that only a fraction of adverse events are reported, so the true number of cases is almost certainly higher. This tendency of underreporting is consistent with our clinical experience.” And most importantly, they noted: “the risks of a Covid-19 vaccine may outweigh the benefits for certain low-risk populations, such as children, young adults and people who have recovered from Covid-19.” The latter would have natural immunity.
And on that topic, they emphasized: “While you would never know it from listening to public-health officials, not a single published study has demonstrated that patients with a prior infection benefit from Covid-19 vaccination. That this isn’t readily acknowledged by the CDC or Anthony Fauci is an indication of how deeply entangled pandemic politics is in science.” The politics are pushing for approval. A sign of a corrupt system.
An impressive 2017 analysis found considerable evidence to reach this conclusion about the CDC system reporting ill impacts from vaccine use: “By far, the most dire failure of the VAERS system is the vast underreporting of vaccine adverse effects which leads to a dangerous false security in vaccine safety and an erroneous assumption that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks.”
It found a congressional report that said: “Former FDA commissioner David A. Kessler has estimated that VAERS reports currently represent only a fraction of the serious adverse events.” Another important revelation: “The IOM [Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences} has been telling the CDC for over 23 years that they have inadequate information (and none at all in some cases) to advise on the causal relationship between vaccines and adverse events for a majority of adverse events reported.”
It also dug out data from a three-year study by a Harvard University medical practice group that found adverse vaccine impacts for 2.6 percent of jabs. CDC refused to use the Harvard system to update theirs. Indeed, a Harvard report criticized the CDC system and found “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” The Harvard data indicate a possible level of adverse events for the COVID vaccines of close to 3 million, far above official CDC data.
Additionally, a very strong, detailed analysis of vaccine safety has been done. Here is a big conclusion: “The number of previously healthy Americans killed by the vaccines so far appears to be over 25,000 and the number of Americans who have been significantly injured could well be over 1M.” Moreover, this too was said: “we can show causality for a variety of very serious neurological and cardiovascular events. Our methods include methods similar to what the FDA itself used to ascribe excess myocarditis events to the vaccine (i.e., showing an incidence rate significantly above baseline).
The analysis here raises serious issues that are impossible to ignore. The precautionary principle of medicine says that until more definitive analysis is available, we should assume the current analysis is correct. This means we should not mandate forced vaccinations for students or employees anywhere in the world until these issues are clearly resolved.”
Another important observation in this paper: “So the vaccine deaths are simply categorized as deaths from the virus.” If true, this is yet another big government lie. And most important: “If you believe early treatment works (which it does), nobody should get vaccinated. Lower risk, higher benefit from early treatment.” I agree. Add this nugget of reality: The incredible frontline doctor George Fareed “reports a ratio of 10:1 of vaccine side-effect visits to COVID visits in urgent care.”
Dr. Martin Makary, a public health expert at Johns Hopkins University who has spoken pandemic truth is urging his colleagues to “think twice” before recommending universal COVID-19 vaccination of healthy kids. Given the data in hand, “there’s no compelling case for it right now,” he wrote in MedPage. He has called for more thorough examination of the safety data. “We’ve converted now from being pro-vaccine to vaccine fanaticism,” he said. He has also stressed the importance of natural immunity and questioned the need for vaccination: “Several studies demonstrate that natural immunity should protect those who had Covid-19.” And, on all the hysteria about the delta variant Makary recently smartly observed: “I think it’s used to manipulate people to get vaccinated. I’m for vaccines, but this is turned into a tool to try and coax people into it.” In other words, coercion.
The great Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA vaccines and a truly honest, ethical expert has spoken out about the downside of the COVID vaccines. Here are some of his important points that support opposition to full approval of them. Early on, he advised FDA about potential health risks for them, but he was not taken seriously. Here are his statements from an extensive interview in early July.
On vaccine ill effects: “So we end up relying on really outdated, antiquated systems that have been set up a decade or more ago for the most part or some systems that are self-reported like V-safe at the CDC. But those typically capture 1 per cent of the events because they’re all self-reported.”
On rapid development of the vaccines: “My fear has been with rushing this through, we would end up with problems. How can you not end up with problems if you cut corners and rush these things, particularly the safety issues?”
On risk and obeying federal law: “if you’re going to be administering experimental products to patients, that falls under clinical research, and medical research. And so you have to follow the guidance for medical research. [in] the Common Rule [as] codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. The first clause, importantly, in the Common Rule, is there has to be complete disclosure of risk.” [But] we are not meeting the criteria for full disclosure of risk.”
On coercion to get vaccinated: “All of this messaging that the vaccine is safe, and all the peer pressure that’s happening around the vaccine is coercion. ‘We all have to get vaccinated so we will reach herd immunity.’ That’s the logic. The problem is that this is a fallacy. We have not even gathered the data to be able to calculate in these clinical trials what would give us herd immunity.”
On medical freedom: “You have the right to accept or not accept a vaccine product, particularly an experimental one. You make your own decision. I can’t advise you, in the end, neither can your physician completely advise you.”
Dr. Mercola wrote about Malone’s views and noted: “He believes the risks outweigh the benefits in children, teens and young adults, and that those who have recovered from natural SARS-CoV-2 infection should not get the injection.”
Bottom line: It should now be clear that there is more than enough reason to reject all the propaganda by big media backing the full approval of COVID vaccines. More reason than ever for people to reject getting the jab, especially if you have natural immunity or want to use early home/outpatient treatments that cure and prevent COVID infection. This is very relevant for the 50 percent of working age adults who have not taken any jab. And vaccinated people should think deeply about getting a booster shot.
Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Pandemic Blunder, and many articles on the pandemic, worked on health issues for decades. As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine. As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 US Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers. He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years. He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and America’s Frontline Doctors.
Israel exploits case of Mexico official wanted for torture, murder for diplomatic gain
MEMO | July 15, 2021
The notorious case of former top Mexican official wanted in connection with the torture, abduction and murder of 43 students, and for embezzling $50 million of state funds, has become mired in a diplomatic tussle between Israel and Mexico over the occupation state’s treatment of Palestinians.
Tomás Zerón de Lucio, the former director of Mexico’s equivalent of the FBI, fled to Israel following the opening of an investigation into his role in the 2014 Iguala mass kidnapping, which continues to cause a storm in Mexico to this day. Zeron headed the criminal investigation, but his report was discredited after it was discovered that crucial testimony was obtained under torture, evidence was mishandled and promising leads ignored.
Zeron has dismissed the charges and has been seeking political asylum in Israel, where he has lived for nearly two years. Mexican officials say that Zeron has connections to powerful Israeli companies that helped him flee Mexico.
Allegations against the former official also include the embezzlement of $50 million worth of state funds. While in office, Zeron is said to have authorised the purchase of tens of millions of dollars in surveillance systems from private Israeli intelligence firms including the notorious Pegasus software developed by Israel’s NSO Group. The software has been used to target journalists, lawyers and activists in several countries around the globe. It’s claimed that in some cases the intelligence gear purchased by Zeron were never delivered.
Mexico has demanded the extradition of Zeron. Israel however has not acted on either the extradition request or the asylum claims and is said to be looking for ways to squeeze diplomatic concessions out of the highly sensitive case.
Senior Israeli officials were cited in the New York Times saying that Zeron’s extradition case was being slow-walked as “tit-for-tat diplomacy” against Mexico, which has supported United Nations inquiries into allegations of Israeli war crimes against Palestinians. “Why would we help Mexico?” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to offer a candid view of a diplomatic dispute.
The senior Israeli official said that the current Mexican government has repeatedly supported resolutions criticising Israel at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, including decisions to investigate Israel’s killing of Palestinian protesters in Gaza in 2018 and the killing of civilians in the besieged enclave during the occupation state’s latest onslaught.
UK ‘Freedom’ Means Continued Masking, Govt Tracking & Vax Passports
By Mark Harper | Principia Scientific | July 16, 2021
After weeks of denying that vaccine passports would be introduced into everyday domestic life in the UK, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced Monday that the government will ask nightclubs, pubs, and anywhere where people gather to adopt the measure ‘as a matter of social responsibility’.
The announcement was again completely vague, with little details on exactly what venues will be made to use the NHS COVID app system as “a means of entry,” or how it will be managed and enforced.
The only details that were given by ministers are that it will be ‘encouraged’ anywhere where people are “likely to be in close proximity to others outside their household.”
So everywhere then.
Far from being a “terminus date” for restrictions in England, “Freedom Day” will see the Government urge large indoor venues to tell customers to show Covid passes before being granted entry, it has been confirmed. https://t.co/lsQDulALek — Toby Young (@toadmeister) July 12, 2021
Government guidelines, published Monday also state that if sufficient measures are not taken to limit infection, the Government will “consider mandating certification in certain venues at a later date.”
The announcement also comes on the heels of the government suggesting that while face masks and distancing measures will become optional, businesses and transport companies will be encouraged to make their own policies.
Literally every shop, restaurant, pub, education facility, government facility, bank, form of transport and event could do the same if not expressly forbidden by law – and many will, perhaps the majority. So in other words – not a “lifting” of restrictions at all. https://t.co/2A1qo2Lckd — Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) July 9, 2021
In addition, the NHS ‘Test, Trace & Isolate’ system will also remain in place, meaning that people will still be subject to spontaneous house arrest orders.
The government documents state that “Test, Trace and Isolate has an important ongoing role in managing the virus and reduces the risk of potentially dangerous variants spreading.”
“The Government expects the Test, Trace and Isolate system will remain necessary through the autumn and winter,” it adds.
The guidance also states that “Anyone who tests positive will still need to self-isolate regardless of their vaccination status. Further details will be published in due course and the changes are likely to come into effect later in the summer.”
The Prime Minster also stated Monday that the Government will keep Covid data under review “probably, I’m afraid, into next year” adding that he “will not hesitate” to re-impose restrictions if needed.
The series of ‘freedom’ announcements has left journalists, business owners, MPs, and the general population asking what exactly they are being freed from.
“There is a model for what will be coming our way if we do not resist vaccination passports and electronic ID cards: China’s social credit system, which blacklists people for numerous antisocial offences” | Writes @RossjournoClark https://t.co/f1OzQeJSAe — The Telegraph (@Telegraph) July 13, 2021
Anyone who thinks I’m being too pessimistic should take a look at the small print in Government documents, which offer more than a hint that the Government is intending to reintroduce restrictions this winter… Read more in my article for @ConHome here👇https://t.co/AUwboHRmau — Mark Harper (@Mark_J_Harper) July 12, 2021
Governments are using credit card purchase data as “contact tracing’ COVID surveillance
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim the Net | July 16, 2021
The ongoing “war on cash” that far preceded the pandemic, whose goal is to steer people towards using traceable forms of payment, is coming in very handy in the COVID era precisely for the reason the policy is criticized in the first place – it makes it easy for authorities to keep tabs on individuals who use card transactions.
Reports now mention instances of Australian residents receiving a mandate to quarantine after using their credit card to pay at an establishment, where somebody known to be infected with the virus had stayed.
Credit card receipts led back to the person that was then forced to self-isolate (although they did not have coronavirus) – and apparently led the person to consider what, if anything, is left of their privacy in a world where more and more people leave long “data trails” behind them.
Stop-gap measures like switching to alternative browsers etc (while probably running it on Windows) aside – the takeaway is that the only way to regain some privacy in the world of mass surveillance and tracking is to turn to alternatives – but do it consistently, and be prepared to pay for the privilege of removing oneself from the closed ecosystems like those ruled with an iron fist by Google, Apple, or Microsoft.
As for using card transactions to do COVID contact tracing, Australia is far from being the only country that is doing it. In fact, those lauded as most successful in even getting their contact tracing efforts off the ground, like South Korea, pioneered the practice. Data surveillance, reports said, was used by authorities there to make sure that people who were either unable or unwilling to share their every move are eventually forced into doing it.
Australia has “distinguished” itself for being willing to jeopardize people’s privacy with a series of COVID surveillance and control measures over the past 18 months, and last November, the National Contact Tracing Review, whose chair is Australia’s Chief Scientist Alan Finkel, recommended using consumer credit card data for track and trace purposes.
But what about privacy? Privacy rules will apply – until they don’t, seems to be the gist of it.
“Privacy rules will apply,” the Review said, but then added, “and in some jurisdictions legislative change may be required.”
Covid – start at the beginning and question everything
By Abir Ballan | The Conservative Woman | July 15, 2021
ASKING questions is at the heart of science. Science is not an institution and not an authority. Science is never settled. It is forever evolving through conjecture and criticism. Questions form the basis of all scientific inquiry and scientific progress. Without challenging existing concepts – usually held by a majority – there is no knowledge creation. Censoring dissenting voices eliminates the mechanism of error correction and pushes humanity back into the dark ages.
From the beginning, lockdowns were a questionable public health tool, even described as ‘pro-contagion’ by Professor Ioannidis of Stanford University. As early as June 2020, papers showed that lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) had no effect on reducing deaths. We were all aware that lockdowns would have a terrible economic impact and a devastating human toll, especially in the developing world. We went along with this ‘cure’ because we were told it would save lives – it was necessary for two to three weeks to flatten the curve of infections and prevent healthcare system strain. Yet the goalposts kept shifting endlessly, moving towards a ZERO COVID world: a completely unrealistic and unachievable goal.
Is now the time to question absolutely everything?
The US Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organisation and ‘experts’ have flip-flopped multiple times. In February 2020, Anthony Fauci said: ‘In all the history of respiratory-born viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person.’ However, all the pandemic measures were based on the assumption that people who are healthy might be sick without knowing it. On June 8, 2020, Maria Van Kerkhove of the WHO stated that asymptomatic spread of SARS-CoV-2 is very rare. The next day she walked back her comment saying that studies, based on computer modelling not real-life data, show that asymptomatic spread is cause for concern. A systematic review and meta-analysis paper, published in 2020, falsified this assumption. Asymptomatic spread is simply not the main driver of disease. What should be of even less concern is transmission in the open air, likely to be below 0.1 per cent of all transmissions. Unfortunately, the CDC overestimated outdoor spread, claiming that it represented 10 per cent of transmissions. This exaggeration was used to justify futile outdoor mask mandates. They later admitted their error, too little, too late. Why are we still testing healthy people and locking populations indoors?
The CDC and the WHO confused the public with their contradictory social media recommendations about masks: ‘Masks don’t work in the community. Everyone should wear masks in the community. Everyone should wear two masks. Even if you are vaccinated you should still wear a mask. If you are vaccinated you can do without a mask.’ Behind the scenes, the CDC published a policy review in May 2020 stating, ‘We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission’. The WHO published an Interim guidance in June 2020 stating ‘At present, there is no direct evidence on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community’. Fauci’s leaked emails showed that he didn’t believe in the power of masks either. He said in February 2020 in his email to Sylvia Burwell, ‘The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material.’ Why were masks mandated even when the data showed that they made no difference?
The WHO flip-flopped on the definition of herd immunity, which is the point at which an infectious disease stops being a cause for concern because most of the population is immune to it. They removed natural immunity from the definition and limited herd immunity to that reached via vaccination only. After this meddling caused an uproar, they went back again and included both forms of immunity as contributing to herd immunity. Furthermore, they changed their recommendations about the PCR test, first allowing very high cycle thresholds of 45 (which is the number of times the genetic material of the virus is multiplied until it is detected) and recommending that cases are diagnosed based on a positive PCR test, regardless of symptoms – previously unheard of in medicine. Patients are usually diagnosed with a disease if they are sick. Later the WHO rectified their stance, clarifying that the diagnosis of cases requires clinical symptoms and that high cycle thresholds lead to false positives. Why did the WHO make recommendations contrary to established medical practice for infectious diseases? The PCR test was not designed to diagnose infectiousness. It merely detects viral genetic material, dead or alive. Studies indicate that 25 cycles are enough to detect an infectious virus. How much have the false positive results affected the number of cases and in turn the number of deaths? How many deaths were wrongly attributed to COVID instead of other diseases?
Science doesn’t flip-flop like that. Politics does. Science has become politicised. We need to decouple science from politics. It is being manipulated to serve corporate and political agendas. Anyone criticising ‘The Science’ is silenced harshly. People are smart and if given accurate information they can make the right decisions for themselves and their communities. Unfortunately, people are being misinformed and terrified with non-stop death reports, apparently vanishing immunity and the threat of new variants. Fear is not good for us. It’s not good for our immunity, our health or our ability to think rationally. To calm the fear, we need to know that ‘cases’ are meaningless, deaths are overestimated and immunity – whether natural or vaccine-induced – Is long-lasting and can protect us from future variants. Variants are not unique to Covid. All respiratory viruses mutate. The variants are so minutely different from each other that our immune system will recognise them and protect us. It’s like your friend wearing a cap. Can you still recognise him? In the same way, your immune system also recognises the variants. How much longer should we let those variants haunt us?
Now is the time for error correction. Start at the beginning and question everything: lockdowns, asymptomatic transmission, mask mandates, claims about short-lived immunity and dreadful variants. Now is the time for a better solution.
Mark your calendar for The Question Everything: Lockdowns Summit, on July 17, 2021, where pre-eminent experts from science, social sciences, law and industry will evaluate the response to Covid-19.


