Aletho News


The big question: Why should someone who has had Covid need the vaccine?

By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | August 10, 2021

LAST week TCW Defending Freedom writer Frederick Edward tweeted this eminently reasonable question: If the purpose of vaccination is to give antibodies, then why should he, as someone who’s already had Covid, have the vaccine?

Of course there is no rational or reasonable explanation. Nor is it explicable why, given the levels of testing to which the government is subjecting the population, it does not add antibody testing to the mix.

It is unreasonable and Todd Zywicki, an American law professor, is determined to demonstrate this. In an article for the Wall Street Journal he explains why he is suing his employer, the highly rated George Mason University in Virginia, a state institution which is mandating Covid vaccines. In sum, it is that since he already has natural immunity, there can be no justification for a coercive violation of his bodily autonomy. 

He explains that although vaccination is unnecessary and potentially risky, the only other options open to him are to teach remotely or to seek a medical exemption that would require him to wear a mask, remain socially distanced from faculty or students during, say, office hours, and submit to weekly testing. In which case, he writes:

‘It would be impossible for me to perform my duties to the best of my ability under such conditions. The administration has threatened those who don’t submit with disciplinary action, including termination of employment. This week the public-interest lawyers at the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed suit on my behalf, challenging the university’s mandatory vaccination requirement for those with naturally acquired immunity. This coercive mandate violates my constitutional right to bodily integrity for no compelling reason.’

He cites clinical studies from Israel, the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, England and elsewhere that ‘have demonstrated beyond a doubt that natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 provides robust and durable protection against reinfection comparable to or better than that provided by the most effective vaccines’ and goes on to question the approval of vaccines with less efficacy than natural immunity, referencing the World Health Organisation conclusion: ‘Current evidence points to most individuals developing strong protective immune responses following natural infection with SARS-CoV-2.’

Even more interesting is the centering of his case around the danger of vaccination to those who have previously contracted and recovered from Covid:

‘It isn’t merely unnecessary for me to get the shot. It’s potentially dangerous. Covid-recovered individuals have been mostly excluded from the vaccine clinical trials, rendering any claims about the purported safety for this group largely speculative. Moreover, clinical evidence has suggested that Covid survivors suffer more frequent and more serious side effects from vaccination than those who have never been infected.

‘The onslaught of the Delta variant in recent weeks has reinforced the lessons about the robust protection afforded by natural immunity. Unlike the current vaccines, which are designed to target the spike protein of the virus, natural immunity recognizes the entire complement of SARS-CoV-2 proteins and thus protects against a greater array of variants.

‘Thus even as vaccine breakthrough infections multiply around the world, natural immunity is robust to the Delta and other variants. With respect to the Gamma variant, a recent analysis of an outbreak among a small group of mine workers in French Guiana found that 60 per cent of fully vaccinated miners suffered breakthrough infections compared with zero among those with natural immunity.

‘And whereas the vaccine’s protection may wane faster than expected, the latest estimates on the durability of natural immunity stretch to at least 11 months, the duration of most follow-up studies. Some 16 months after contracting Covid I am still testing positive for antibodies. In fact, researchers have discovered that the antibodies produced by natural infection continue to evolve to generate “increasingly broad and potent antibodies that are resistant to mutations” compared with the more static “antibodies elicited by vaccination”.’

We will follow his case with interest.

The new assumption that only by vaccination can herd immunity can be achieved is a false one – it is not science. It needs to be challenged in the courts here too.

August 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | 2 Comments

Kansas City Hospital Counters Media’s False Narrative That They’re Overwhelmed With Child Covid Cases

By Chris Menahan | InformationLiberation | August 9, 2021

Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City pushed back against the media’s hysterical narrative that their hospital had “hit capacity” due to child covid cases by pointing out that most of their child patients have respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), not covid, and they have “plenty of capacity” to see kids in outpatient settings.

“Children’s Mercy hits capacity as COVID cases continue rising in KC Metro,” blared a headline from the Kansas City Star on July 27.

“As you may have heard, we are currently experiencing high patient volumes in the hospital, but we continue to be able to meet the needs of our patients requiring hospitalization,” Children’s Mercy responded in a statement posted to Facebook on July 28. “We also want to emphasize we have plenty of capacity to see your child in all of our outpatient settings.”

“While we continue to see COVID-19 cases increase in our community and in our hospital, the increase in children we are treating as in-patients is mainly due to respiratory illnesses, like RSV,” Children’s Mercy continued. “We encourage all families to keep their scheduled clinic appointments.”

Children’s Mercy, which has 367-beds, said Thursday that they had 19 hospitalized child covid patients in total.

There has been a significant surge of RSV cases among children throughout our country since July.

“So we’re all clear: when you read those worrying stories about a respiratory virus filling children’s hospitals, you are reading about RSV,” Alex Berenson said Saturday on Twitter. “And the likely reason this is happening now is because lockdowns prevented normal exposure, so 18 months of cases are happening at once.”

From WATE, “East Tennessee Children’s Hospital reports more RSV cases in July than first half of 2021”:

East Tennessee Children’s Hospital said they have treated more cases of Respiratory Syncytial Disease, or RSV, in July than the first six months of 2021 combined.

There have been a total of 303 RSV cases at the Knoxville hospital in the month of July, two more cases than reported in the first six months of 2021 combined.

RSV is a contagious virus in children and can cause respiratory infections that can lead to more serious illnesses such as pneumonia. In June, the Centers for Disease Control issued a health advisory after seeing an increase in RSV cases across the southern United States.

“Due to reduced circulation of RSV during the winter months of 2020–2021, older infants and toddlers might now be at increased risk of severe RSV-associated illness since they have likely not had typical levels of exposure to RSV during the past 15 months,” a release from the CDC said.

We have still yet to see the full extent of the damage caused by our government’s disastrous lockdown policies.

Some states are looking at yet more lockdowns come fall and winter and public health authorities working together with the media have gone into fearmongering overdrive outright terrorizing the population that we’re all going to die if every last person doesn’t take Big Pharma’s increasingly-ineffective mRNA injections.

August 9, 2021 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | 2 Comments

CDC has a plan to stick the “high risk” in special camps, which will most likely enhance transmission of Covid

Green Zones or Concentration Camps? 

By Meryl Nass, MD | August 9, 2021

For people who still think that public health dictates are intended for our benefit, will you still think so when the public health police decide to remove granny from her home to a high risk camp, where latrines will be provided? And hopefully food and medical care, all based on the refugee model? This was updated a year ago, so it has probably changed in the interim.

The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC’s perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data. Considerations are based on current evidence known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may need to be revised as more information becomes available. Please check the CDC website periodically for updates.

What is the Shielding Approach? 1

The shielding approach aims to reduce the number of severe COVID-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (“high-risk”) and the general population (“low-risk”). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or “green zones” established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector or community level depending on the context and setting.1,2 They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.

Operational Considerations

The shielding approach requires several prerequisites for effective implementation. Several are addressed, including access to healthcare and provision of food. However, there are several prerequisites which require additional considerations. Table 2 presents the prerequisites or suggestions as stated in the shielding guidance document (column 1) and CDC presents additional questions and considerations alongside these prerequisites (column 2).

Table 2: Suggested Prerequisites per the shielding documents and CDC’s Operational Considerations for Implementation

Suggested Prerequisites

*As stated in the shielding document*

  • Each green zone has a dedicated latrine/bathing facility for high-risk individuals
  • To minimize external contact, each green zone should include able-bodied high-risk individuals capable of caring for residents who have disabilities or are less mobile
  • Otherwise, designate low-risk individuals for these tasks, preferably who have recovered from confirmed COVID-19 and are assumed to be immune.
  • The green zone and living areas for high-risk residents should be aligned with minimum humanitarian (SPHERE) standards.6

Considerations as suggested by CDC

  • The shielding approach advises against any new facility construction to establish green zones; however, few settings will have existing shelters or communal facilities with designated latrines/bathing facilities to accommodate high-risk individuals. In these settings, most latrines used by HHs are located outside the home and often shared by multiple HHs.
  • If dedicated facilities are available, ensure safety measures such as proper lighting, handwashing/hygiene infrastructure, maintenance and disinfection of latrines.
  • Ensure facilities can accommodate high-risk individuals with disabilities, children and separate genders at the neighborhood/camp-level.
  • This may be difficult to sustain, especially if the caregivers are also high risk. As caregivers may often will be family members, ensure that this strategy is socially or culturally acceptable.
  • Currently, we do not know if prior infection confers immunity.
  • The shielding approach requires strict adherence to infection, prevention and control (IPC) measures. They require, uninterrupted availability of soap, water, hygiene/cleaning supplies, masks or cloth face coverings, etc. for all individuals in green zones. Thus, it is necessary to ensure minimum public health standards6 are maintained and possibly supplemented to decrease the risk of other outbreaks outside of COVID-19. Attaining and maintaining minimum SPHERE6 standards is difficult in these settings for the general population.8,9,10 Users should consider that provision of services and supplies to high risk individuals could be at the expense of low-risk residents, putting them at increased risk for other outbreaks.

August 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , | Leave a comment

French cafés sit EMPTY as police RAID outdoor diners, after Macron extends vaccine pass to restaurants

RT | August 9, 2021

Police in France have begun enforcing the vaccination pass mandate to enter cafés and restaurants, leading to many of their tables being empty during the usually busy lunchtime, as the French lunched on public benches instead.

On Monday, President Emmanuel Macron’s government extended the controversial ‘pass sanitaire’ requirement to dining venues, even outdoor ones, disregarding the weekend of mass protests that drew at least 250,000 people onto the streets across France.

A video doing the rounds on social media, shot by a Reuters photographer, showed French police checking diners’ papers. Those without the pass face a €135 *($158) fine, which increases to €9,000 ($10,560) for a repeat offense.

By lunchtime, many sidewalk cafés were sitting completely empty as their regular customers chose instead to sit on public benches outside – according to a multitude of photos and comments posted on social media, anyway.

Another video showed outdoor venues with few diners on the Champs Élysées, Paris’ main thoroughfare.

There were photos of empty tables right across the city at times when such places would ordinarily be full.

The famous Grande Brasserie, near the Bastille square, had a few customers inside, but no one out on its patio. One Twitter user speculated that the outdoor seating areas were empty as the result of some kind of nationwide boycott of the health pass.

The pass, introduced by Macron to compel vaccinations against Covid-19, has been mandatory for entrance to museums, movie theaters, swimming pools, and other venues since July 21. The courts have also ruled that it was constitutional to mandate vaccinations for healthcare workers, some of whom have gone on strike in protest.

Facing a rising number of Covid-19 cases attributed to the Delta variant of the virus, the French authorities have pressed hard to vaccinate everyone. Meanwhile, vaccine makers Pfizer and Moderna have drastically increased the price of their vaccines in the European Union.

August 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | 5 Comments

The murder of the ‘menacing’ water technician: On the shadow wars in the West Bank

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | August 9, 2021

There is an ongoing, but hidden, Israeli war on the Palestinians which is rarely highlighted or even known. It is a water war, which has been in the making for decades.

On 26 and 27 July, two separate but intrinsically linked events took place in the Ein Al-Hilweh area in the occupied Jordan Valley, and near the town of Beita, south of Nablus.

In the first incident, Jewish settlers from the illegal settlement of Maskiyot began construction in the Ein Al-Hilweh Spring, which has been a source of freshwater for villages and hundreds of Palestinian families in that area. The seizure of the spring has been developing for months, all under the watchful eye of the Israeli occupation army.

Now, the Ein Al-Hilweh Spring, like most of the Jordan Valley’s land and water resources, is annexed by Israel.

Less than 24 hours later, Shadi Omar Salim, a Palestinian municipal employee, was killed by Israeli soldiers in the town of Beita. The Israeli army quickly issued a statement which, expectedly, blamed the Palestinian for his own death.

The Palestinian victim approached the soldiers in a “menacing manner”, while holding “what appeared to be an iron bar,” before he was gunned down, the Israeli army claimed.

If the “iron bar” claim was true, it might be related to the fact that Salim was a water technician. Indeed, the Palestinian worker was on his way to open the pipes that supply water to Beita and other adjacent areas.

Beita, which has witnessed much violence in recent weeks, is facing an existential threat. An illegal Jewish settlement, called Givat Eviatar, is being built atop the Palestinian Sabih Mountain, in Arabic, Jabal Sabih. As usual, whenever a Jewish settlement is constructed, Palestinian life and livelihood are threatened. Thus, the ongoing Palestinian protests in the area.

The struggle of Beita is a representation of the wider Palestinian struggle: unarmed civilians fighting against a settler-colonial state that ultimately wishes to replace a Palestinian village or town with a Jewish settlement.

There is another facet to what may see as a typical story, where the Israeli army and Jewish settlers work together to ethnically cleanse Palestinians: Mekorot. The latter is a state-owned Israeli water company that literally steals Palestinian water and sells it back to the Palestinians at an exorbitant price.

Unsurprisingly, Mekorot operates near Beita as well. The Palestinian worker, Salim, was killed because his job of supplying water to the people of Beita was a direct threat to Israeli colonial designs in this region.

Let us put this in a larger context. Israel does not just occupy Palestinian land, it also systematically usurps all of its resources, including water, in flagrant violation of international law which guarantees the fundamental rights of an occupied nation.

The occupied West Bank obtains most of its water from the Mountain Aquifer, which is divided into three smaller aquifers: the Western Aquifer, the Eastern Aquifer and the North-Eastern Aquifer. In theory, Palestinians have plenty of water, at least enough to meet the minimally-required water allotment of 102-120 litres per day, as recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO). In practice, however, this is hardly the case. Sadly, most of the water in these aquifers is appropriated directly by Israel. Some call it “water capture”; Palestinians call it, more accurately, “theft”.

While in Israel the daily per capita water consumption is estimated at 300 litres, illegal Jewish settlers in the West Bank consume over 800 litres per day. The latter number becomes even more outrageous if compared to the meager amount enjoyed by a Palestinian, that of 70 litres per day.

This problem is accentuated in the so-called ‘Area C’ in the West Bank, for a reason. ‘Area C’ consists of nearly 60 per cent of the total size of the West Bank and, unlike ‘Areas A’ and ‘B’, it is the least populated. It is mostly fertile land and it includes the Jordan Valley, known as the ‘breadbasket of Palestine’.

Despite the fact that the Israeli government had, in 2020, decided to postpone its formal annexation of that area, a de facto annexation has been in effect for years. The illegal appropriation of the Ein Al-Hilweh Spring by illegal Jewish settlers is part of a larger stratagem that aims at appropriating the Jordan Valley, one dunum, one spring, and one mountain at a time.

Of the more than 150,000 Palestinians living in ‘Area C’, nearly 40 per cent – over 200 communities – suffer from “severe shortage of clean water”. That shortage can be remedied if Palestinians are allowed to drill new wells, expand current ones or to use modern technologies to allocate other sources of freshwater. Not only does the Israeli army prohibit them from doing so, even rainwater is off-limits to Palestinians.

“Israel even controls the collection of rainwater throughout most of the West Bank and rainwater harvesting cisterns owned by Palestinian communities are often destroyed by the Israeli army” an Amnesty International report, published in 2017, concluded.

Since then, the situation became even worse, especially since the idea of officially annexing a third of the West Bank obtained widespread support in the Israeli Knesset and society. Now, every move made by the Israeli army and Jewish settlers in the West Bank is directed towards that end, controlling the land and its resources, denying Palestinians access to their means of survival and, ultimately, ethnically cleansing them altogether.

The Beita protests continue, despite the heavy price being paid. Last June, a 15-year-old boy, Ahmad Bani Shamsa, was killed when an Israeli army bullet struck him in the head. At the time, Defense for Children International-Palestine issued a statement asserting that Bani-Shamsa did not pose any threat to the Israeli army.

The truth is, it is Beita that is under constant Israeli threat, as well as the Jordan Valley, ‘Area C’, the West Bank and the whole of Palestine. The protest in Beita is a protest for land rights, water rights and basic human rights. Bani Shamsa and, later, Salim, were killed in cold blood simply because their protests were mere irritants to the grand design of colonial Israel.

The irony of it all is that Israel seems to love everything about Palestine: the land, the resources, the food and even the fascinating history, but not the indigenous Palestinians themselves.

August 9, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , , | 4 Comments

Rulings against Palestinian inmates show Saudi desire to normalize relations with Israel: Yemen’s Ansarullah

Press TV – August 9, 2021

Yemen’s Ansarullah resistance movement has condemned Saudi Arabia for handing down harsh verdicts against dozens of Palestinian inmates in the kingdom, some of whom were given jail terms of up to 22 years, over alleged support for the Palestinian Hamas movement, saying the verdicts clearly reflect the Riyadh regime’s desire to normalize relations with Israel.

“We strongly condemn Saudi rulings against Palestinians living in the country. We consider such verdicts a poisonous stab in the back of the Palestinian cause, and a message of friendship and obedience to Israel,” Ansarullah’s political bureau said in a statement.

It added, “Given our knowledge about the Saudi regime’s nature and its eagerness to normalize ties with the Zionist enemy, we call upon Muslim nations to show solidarity with the Palestinian prisoners, and to press for their immediate release.”

“Sana’a is ready to release Saudi prisoners in exchange for the freedom of Palestinians being kept behind bars in the Riyadh regime’s detention,” Ansarullah said.

A Saudi court on Sunday issued various sentences against 69 Palestinians and Jordanians.

The group was detained in March 2018 during a wave of arrests by Saudi authorities on a group of long-term Palestinian and Jordanian residents in the kingdom on alleged links to Hamas.

Sources in the besieged Gaza Strip have previously said that they believed the crackdown was linked to warming ties between Israel and Riyadh.

An official Hamas source said last year that the majority of the detainees were Hamas members, who had resided in the Persian Gulf country for decades, accusing Saudi Arabia of “targeting everyone who is linked with resistance” against the Israeli occupation.

Several Palestinians have been detained since February 2019 and are facing trial before a Saudi terrorism court.

The Saudi court sentenced Hamas representative in Saudi Arabia Mohammed al-Khudairi to 15 years in prison. His son, Hani, was sentenced to three years, Turkey’s official Anadolu news agency reported.

Khudairi’s brother, Abd al-Majeed, said the sentence includes “clemency for half the term.”

Khudairi, 82, was a veteran Hamas leader responsible for managing the relationship with Saudi Arabia for two decades.

Hamas, meanwhile, condemned the sentences handed out on Sunday, calling them “unjust” and saying those sentenced had done nothing to harm Saudi Arabia.

“We were shocked … by the rulings issued by the Saudi judiciary against a large number of Palestinians and Jordanians residing in the kingdom,” Hamas said in a statement.

“We deplore the harsh and undeserved sentences against most of them. All they did was support their cause and their people, to which they belong, without any offence to the kingdom and its people,” it added.

The Palestinian Islamic Jihad movement also condemned the rulings.

Over the past three years, the Saudi authorities have also deported more than 100 Palestinians from the kingdom, mostly on charges of supporting Hamas financially, politically or through social networking sites.

The Riyadh regime has imposed strict control over Palestinian funds in Saudi Arabia since the end of 2017.

August 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | 1 Comment

Taliban capture 6th provincial capital weeks after rejecting reports of a ceasefire, amid US withdrawal

RT | August 9, 2021

The Taliban have seized control of its sixth provincial capital in Afghanistan within a matter of days, according to a spokesperson for the group, as the militants continue to secure territory after America’s military withdrawal.

The military victory for the Taliban was confirmed by the deputy governor of Samangan Province, home to the city of Aibak. Speaking to AFP, Afghanistan official Sefatullah Samangani declared that “the Taliban have captured the city of Aibak and have complete control over it.”

The Taliban formally took control of the city on Monday, after a “senator surrendered” and asked Afghanistan to withdraw its forces from the area to avoid further conflict.

Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid declared on Twitter that the city center was completely under its control, while the governor, the police chief, the intelligence department, and all its affiliates were cleared.

The capture of Aibak comes days after Taliban militants seized control of the provincial capital of Sar-e Pul and the region’s fifth-largest city. All major government buildings in the two locations have been secured by Taliban fighters, although Afghan soldiers were reportedly trying to retain control of the Kunduz airport.

The continued military advance of the Taliban throughout Afghanistan follows the group’s rejection of reports that a ceasefire deal had been reached with the country’s government in return for the release of 7,000 prisoners.

Since America’s withdrawal from the region earlier this year, the Taliban claims to have secured 85% of the territory in Afghanistan. Afghan officials dispute this figure, however, claiming it has been exaggerated by the group.

August 9, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , | 3 Comments

Is Ashli Babbit’s Killer Guilty of Murder?

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | August 9, 2021

There are those who think that the so-called riot or so-called insurrection in the Capitol last January justified the killing of Ashli Babbitt, the Air Force veteran who was shot dead by a still-unidentified Capitol police officer during the melee. 

Not so! The power to use deadly force is strictly limited, even if the event was in fact a “riot” or an “insurrection” rather than simply a protest that got out of hand. 

The killer’s lawyer, Mark Schamel, understands that, even if journalists within the mainstream media do not. He stated, “Lethal force is appropriate if the situation puts you or others in fear of imminent bodily harm.”

Well, except for the fact that what Schamel stated is not correct. The test for the use of deadly force is not whether the police officer is in fear of imminent bodily harm. The test is whether the officer reasonably believes that the subject poses a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to the officer or others. 

In other words, just because a police officer is scared that someone might do harm to him is not enough, under the law, to justify his killing the person. The police officer must reasonably believe that he is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death. 

It is undisputed that Ashli Babbit was unarmed. In fact, it is also undisputed that during this so-called riot or so-called insurrection, none of the Capitol protestors were shooting anyone. 

Light jail sentences

Federal Judge Randolph Moss seems to get that. That’s got to be the reason he meted out an 8-month jail sentence to Paul Hodgins, another Capitol protestor, for participating in the melee. Isn’t that a rather light sentence for someone who participated in what the mainstream media continues to call a “riot,” an “insurrection,” and a “grave assault on democracy”? Don’t some people who get convicted of DUI receive higher jail sentences than that? 

Why, even federal prosecutors were recommending to the judge to give Hodgins no more than a 15-21 month sentence. Interestingly, at sentencing federal prosecutors compared Hodgins’ conduct to that of a “domestic terrorist.” Yet, there was a problem with that theory: They didn’t charge him with domestic terrorism. Did they just forget to do so?

According to the, “So far, nearly 20 Capitol rioters have entered guilty pleas, and two have been sentenced for misdemeanor crimes:  one, Anna Morgan-Lloyd, was sentenced to three years probation and no jail time, and another, Michael Curzio, was sentenced to six months imprisonment, although the courts credited him for the nearly six months he had already spent incarcerated as he waited for the courts to hear his case.”

What? How in the world can participating in a “riot” (or an “insurrection” or a “grave assault on democracy) be only a misdemeanor rather than a felony? How can “rioters” and “insurrectionists” and “grave assaulters on democracy” be receiving probation or extremely light jail sentences?

Where is Robert Mueller when we need him? He clearly should be summoned out of retirement to help these federal prosecutors and federal judges understand how serious this “riot,” “insurrection,” and “grave assault on democracy” really was.

Secrecy vs transparency

A video of the Ashli Babbitt killing proves that the protestors weren’t killing anyone. In fact, there were Capitol police on the protestors’ side of the door who were guarding the door that the protestors were trying to bash down. No one touched those police officers. Since the door was made of glass, it is a virtual certainty that Ashli Babbitt’s killer saw those police officers and the fact that Babbitt and the other protestors were doing nothing to harm them. 

So, what caused that still-unidentified Capitol police officer to kill Ashli Babbitt? Did he mistakenly think he saw a gun in her hand? Given that she hadn’t even broken through the door, what caused him to think that he was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death? Did he simply get scared and decide to shoot? What was his level of training? Was he a newbie Capitol police officer? Had he received adequate training on the use of deadly force? Did he have a misunderstanding with respect to when he was authorized to use deadly force?

We don’t know the answers to these questions because the killer’s version of events is still shrouded in secrecy. We know that federal prosecutors have exonerated him but that’s no big surprise. What’s necessary is transparency. For one thing, there is absolutely no reason to keep the killer’s identity secret. Just because a police officer might be scared of retaliation for killing a citizen is no reason to keep his identity and his version of events secret. The criminal justice system doesn’t operate like that. Police work is inherently dangerous business. If people don’t want to incur that danger, then they shouldn’t become police officers. To use danger surrounding police work to shroud a police killing of a citizen in secrecy is totally illegitimate. Justice demands full transparency of all matters relating to Ashli Babbitt’s killing.

As more facts have come out about Ashli Babbitt and her life, one thing has become painfully clear: This 35-year-old wife and mother would never have threatened that still-unidentified police officer or anyone else with serious bodily injury or death. Therefore, the obvious question arises: What caused that still-unidentified police officer to kill Ashli Babbitt? Her family has a right to know. So do the American people.

August 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | 1 Comment

Open Letter to the Unvaccinated

Ontario Civil Liberties Association | August 2, 2021

You are not alone! As of 28 July 2021, 29% of Canadians have not received a COVID-19 vaccine, and an additional 14% have received one shot. In the US and in the European Union, less than half the population is fully vaccinated, and even in Israel, the “world’s lab” according to Pfizer, one third of people remain completely unvaccinated. Politicians and the media have taken a uniform view, scapegoating the unvaccinated for the troubles that have ensued after eighteen months of fearmongering and lockdowns. It’s time to set the record straight.

It is entirely reasonable and legitimate to say ‘no’ to insufficiently tested vaccines for which there is no reliable science. You have a right to assert guardianship of your body and to refuse medical treatments if you see fit. You are right to say ‘no’ to a violation of your dignity, your integrity and your bodily autonomy. It is your body, and you have the right to choose. You are right to fight for your children against their mass vaccination in school.

You are right to question whether free and informed consent is at all possible under present circumstances. Long-term effects are unknown. Transgenerational effects are unknown. Vaccine-induced deregulation of natural immunity is unknown. Potential harm is unknown as the adverse event reporting is delayed, incomplete and inconsistent between jurisdictions.

You are being targeted by mainstream media, government social engineering campaigns, unjust rules and policies, collaborating employers, and the social-media mob. You are being told that you are now the problem and that the world cannot get back to normal unless you get vaccinated. You are being viciously scapegoated by propaganda and pressured by others around you. Remember; there is nothing wrong with you.

You are inaccurately accused of being a factory for new SARS-CoV-2 variants, when in fact, according to leading scientists, your natural immune system generates immunity to multiple components of the virus. This will promote your protection against a vast range of viral variants and abrogates further spread to anyone else.

You are justified in demanding independent peer-reviewed studies, not funded by multinational pharmaceutical companies. All the peer-reviewed studies of short-term safety and short-term efficacy have been funded, organized, coordinated, and supported by these for-profit corporations; and none of the study data have been made public or available to researchers who don’t work for these companies.

You are right to question the preliminary vaccine trial results. The claimed high values of relative efficacy rely on small numbers of tenuously determined “infections.”  The studies were also not blind, where people giving the injections admittedly knew or could deduce whether they were injecting the experimental vaccine or the placebo. This is not acceptable scientific methodology for vaccine trials.

You are correct in your calls for a diversity of scientific opinions. Like in nature, we need a polyculture of information and its interpretations. And we don’t have that right now. Choosing not to take the vaccine is holding space for reason, transparency and accountability to emerge. You are right to ask, ‘What comes next when we give away authority over our own bodies?’

Do not be intimidated. You are showing resilience, integrity and grit. You are coming together in your communities, making plans to help one another and standing for scientific accountability and free speech, which are required for society to thrive. We are among many who stand with you.

Angela Durante, PhD
Denis Rancourt, PhD
Claus Rinner, PhD
Laurent Leduc, PhD
Donald Welsh, PhD
John Zwaagstra, PhD
Jan Vrbik, PhD
Valentina Capurri, PhD

August 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | 5 Comments

This is nuts, Moderna & Pfizer intentionally lost the clinical trial control group testing vaccine efficacy and safety

Conservative Treehouse | August 6, 2021

This is not just scientific madness, it appears to be very intentional and purposeful.

The Moderna and Pfizer vaccine tests were conducted, as customary, with a control group; a group within the trial who were given a placebo and not the test vaccine. However, during the trial -and after the untested vaccines were given emergency use authorization – the vaccine companies conducting the trial decided to break protocol and notify the control group they were not vaccinated. Almost all the control group were then given the vaccine.

Purposefully dissolving the placebo group violates the scientific purpose to test whether the vaccine has any efficacy; any actual benefit and/or safety issues. Without a control group there is nothing to compare the vaccinated group against. According to NPR, the doctors lost the control group in the Johnson County Clinicial Trial (Lexena, Kansas) on purpose:

(Via NPR) […] “Dr. Carlos Fierro, who runs the study there, says every participant was called back after the Food and Drug Administration authorized the vaccine.

“During that visit we discussed the options, which included staying in the study without the vaccine,” he says, “and amazingly there were people — a couple of people — who chose that.”

He suspects those individuals got spooked by rumors about the vaccine. But everybody else who had the placebo shot went ahead and got the actual vaccine. So now Fierro has essentially no comparison group left for the ongoing study. “It’s a loss from a scientific standpoint, but given the circumstances I think it’s the right thing to do,” he says.

People signing up for these studies were not promised special treatment, but once the FDA authorized the vaccines, their developers decided to offer the shots. (read more)

Just so we are clear, the final FDA authorization and approval for the vaccines are based on the outcome of these trials. As noted in the example above, the control group was intentionally lost under the auspices of “the right thing to do”, so there is no way for the efficacy, effectiveness or safety of the vaccine itself to be measured.

There’s no one left within the control group, of a statistically valid value, to give an adequate comparison of outcomes for vaxxed -vs- non-vaxxed.

Whiskey – Tango – Foxtrot !!! This is nuts.

That NPR article is one to bookmark when people start claiming the vaccination is effective.

How can the vaccine not be considered effective when there is no group of non-vaccinated people to compare the results to?

Good grief, the entire healthcare system is operating on a massive hive mindset where science, and the scientific method, is thrown out the window in favor of ideological outcomes and self-fulfilling prophecies. The fact that the researchers and doctors, apparently under the payroll of the pharmaceutical companies that have a vested financial interest in the vaccine outcome, lost the control group on purpose is alarming.

Of course, Big Pharma will promote the vaccine as beneficial, and the controlled media will promote that message with a complete disconnect from the clinical trial details, and the FDA will grant approval on results that were intentionally constructed to produce only one outcome.

Madness…. All of it.

August 9, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | 3 Comments