Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Joe Biden never mentioned ‘quarantine camps’ for Covid ‘high-risk’ individuals… but last year the CDC did

By Robert Bridge | RT | August 11, 2021

As a number of politicians push for ‘vaccine passports’ amid fears that a new brand of medical apartheid is coming, a re-surfaced CDC publication advocating internment camps for the ‘high-risk’ has some people fearing the worst.

Last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a paper that floated the totally not suspicious idea of relocating “high-risk” individuals into green zone “camps.” While the proposal didn’t attract much attention at the time, as draconian anti-Covid measures are beginning to ramp up, and basic human rights and liberties are coming under attack, the document has attracted newfound attention. And not without reason, it seems.

The very first line of the document discusses the implementation of a “shielding approach in humanitarian settings… focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings.” Essentially, and this will be important later on, ‘humanitarian settings’ is just another way of saying ‘camps’. Many people are quick to associate the idea of camps with the containment of refugees, for example, or illegal aliens who have breached the border. Yet the only time the word ‘refugee’ is mentioned in the paper is in reference to a camp in Kenya. At the same time, ‘camp’ and ‘camps’ are referred to about 20 times.

There is another ambiguous thing about this document, and that involves its description of “high-risk” individuals and the “general population.”

The paper reads: “In most humanitarian settings [i.e. camps], older population groups make up a small percentage of the total population. For this reason, the shielding approach suggests physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population to prioritize the use of the limited available resources and avoid implementing long-term containment measures among the general population.”

In other words, the CDC is saying that older people being held in camps (humanitarian settings), because they are in the ‘high-risk’ category, should be separated from the ‘general population’ in these facilities so as to reduce the ‘containment measures’. OK, fine. But the document never explains who makes up the general population inside the camps, and why these ‘low-risk’ individuals are being held in these humanitarian ‘green zones’ in the first place.

Either due to a careless lack of clarity or deliberate deceptiveness on the part of the CDC, it is not difficult to see how some people could interpret the inclusion of high-risk groups into these ‘humanitarian settings’ to mean the unvaccinated. But even if there is no evil intent to intern the anti-vax crowd in camps, the conditions set down for these humanitarian settings leave much to be desired. Indeed, to be avoided at all costs.

In one passage, it is stated that “monitoring includes both adherence to protocols and potential adverse effects or outcomes due to isolation and stigma. It may be necessary to assign someone within the green zone, if feasible, to minimize movement in/out of green zones.”

Would that ‘someone’ by any chance be the local police or even the US military? The document offers no clues. However, several lines later, the CDC advises that “isolation/separation from family members, loss of freedom and personal interactions may require additional psychosocial support structures/systems.”

Admitting that confinement in these settings would entail “the loss of freedom and personal interactions” strongly suggests that these individuals are being held in these facilities against their will. In fact, reading through the document, one might get the impression the CDC is talking about a maximum-security prison for the criminally insane.

Anyone who thinks being detained in one of these facilities for the ‘high-risk’ would be all fun and games may wish to take particular heed from this line, which warns: “this shielding approach may have an important psychological impact and may lead to significant emotional distress, exacerbate existing mental illness or contribute to anxiety, depression, helplessness, grief, substance abuse, or thoughts of suicide among those who are separated or have been left behind.”

Left behind? Left behind from what, exactly? The Rapture?

Finally, the authors of this document seem fully aware that their warm and cuddly humanitarian setting, which seems to more resemble a gulag than a health retreat, will not be welcomed by all members of the general population. Gee, I wonder why.

“While the shielding approach is not meant to be coercive, it may appear forced or be misunderstood in humanitarian settings,” advises the CDC, which appears overly concerned about public perceptions. “As with many community interventions meant to decrease COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, compliance and behavior change… are difficult in developed, stable settings; thus, they may be particularly challenging in humanitarian settings which bring their own set of multi-faceted challenges that need to be taken into account.”

The CDC paper references heavily from a March 2020 study authored by one Caroline Favas, entitled ‘Guidance for the Prevention of COVID-19 Infections among High-Risk Individuals in Camps and Camp-like Settings.’ Once again, any hope for clarity is dashed, as this paper, which mentions the words ‘camp’ and ‘camps’ 73 times, is written for “the displaced community itself, humanitarian actors and camp coordination/management authorities.” Few details are given as to who the ‘displaced community’ may be.

(Note: The Favas study provides a broad definition of ‘camp’ or ‘camp-like settings’ as “forcibly displaced population, including refugees and internally displaced living in high density formal or unformal settlements, under collective or individual shelters”).

What follows in the Favas study, which was published by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, occasionally comes off as one of those jargon-riddled medical tracts that are almost as painful to read as a doctor’s handwritten medical prescription. Yet, just as with the CDC paper, the Favas study is crystal clear when it acknowledges that these camps will be viewed negatively by many members of the population.

“Conversely, it is likely that the approach will not be successful if it is perceived as coercive, misunderstood or used by authorities as a pretext for forms of oppression.”

So, who will get to determine who is at high risk of Covid infection and who is not? On this tricky point, Favas, as well as the CDC, wash their hands of the process, leaving it up to ‘community members’ to decide who should be detained in these ‘humanitarian settings’.

“Identification of high-risk community members should be a community-led process, which supports and promotes community ownership of the approach,” Favas avers. “The purpose of the shielding approach and the inclusion criteria should be clearly communicated and explained to the community, so that each household can identify who among them is at risk and should be shielded, on a voluntary basis.”

Favas provides some options for how the detainees could be isolated from their families and communities, none of them terribly comforting. The first involves providing a green zone at the household level. While it may not seem so bad keeping grandma confined to a back room, the author describes the “household shelter” as either a “single shelter” or a “multi-shelter compound.”

The next type of facility is a group of shelters (with maximum 5-10 households), within a small camp area.

Finally, there are the full blown “sector” camps that would accommodate 15,000 or more people. It would be difficult to imagine a camp of such scale that would not require a high police presence, as well as virtually all of the rules and regulations of a prison.

Many people would probably scoff at the thought of Covid camps, dismissing them as the fevered dream of a ‘conspiracy theorist’. And perhaps they would be right. After all, just last month, the Associated Press debunked the claim floated in a satirical publication that Joe Biden was planning to send the unvaccinated to quarantine camps until they agreed to take the shot. Yet the increasingly befuddled US leader has made false claims in the past, like promising that Americans would be free from their mask bondage if they agreed to be vaccinated. That promise evaporated last month as the CDC backtracked, mandating mask wearing in places experiencing spikes in Covid levels, even among the vaccinated.

While some may find it irrelevant to discuss a paper that was released by the CDC last year, they may want to ask why the CDC and Caroline Favas were already discussing the possibility of ‘humanitarian settings’, i.e. camps for high-risk individuals, in early 2020, when the outbreak was still in its early stages. Some might say that was jumping the gun.

In any case, now that the CDC document has made a splash one year after its release, it would be a good time for an explanation regarding some of its more ambiguous and even outrageous suggestions. At a time when a feeling of general distrust and even paranoia of Covid measures is sweeping the globe, people need assurances that their real enemy is not the very people they elected to protect them.

Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. He is the author of ‘Midnight in the American Empire,’ How Corporations and Their Political Servants are Destroying the American Dream.

August 11, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

Vaccine safety evidence

Vaccine Truth | July 20, 2021

We are not “anti-VAXers.” We were vaccinated because we believed we were being told the truth. Now we know better.

Unfortunately, the current gene-based vaccines (all vaccines on the US market today) were rushed to market without proper testing. They are dangerous and appear to have killed over 30,000 previously healthy Americans so far and disabled an equivalent number.

The Phase 3 trials were structured so that the results looked good because they were allowed to exclude unfavorable data (such as Maddie de Garay, a 12-year old girl who participated in the Pfizer trial and who is now permanently paralyzed due to the vaccine). People with a bad first reaction were allowed to drop out which doesn’t reflect the reality of “full vaccination” requirements of workplaces and schools.

We should stop the current gene-based vaccines ASAP. The risk/benefit justification isn’t there for any age group due to the poor safety profile of these vaccines compared with the alternatives.

Based on analysis of VAERS death data for vaccine deaths and CDC death data for COVID deaths, the younger you are, the less sense vaccination makes. If early treatments didn’t work at all, the toxicity of the current vaccines would only make sense for those over 30 (based data to date). However, the vaccines are too toxic and don’t meet the <50 deaths stopping criteria that we’ve used for the past 30 years, so they should never be used because we have better alternatives available today that can achieve the same goals.

We should never be giving vaccines that disable or kill previously healthy people in huge numbers if safer alternatives are available that can achieve all the same objectives.

Why would anyone in America choose to have lipid nanoparticles which deliver a toxic protein into your brain and where the long term effects are unknown, when safer alternatives are available? What parent would choose to experiment on their kids this way when safer and more effective options are available?

It is tragic that schools are requiring students to be vaccinated in order to attend classes. I’ve asked our top universities for the risk-benefit analysis to justify this action and have received nothing. If the vaccines were perfectly safe, no analysis would be needed. But they aren’t.

The rate of severe life-changing side effects appears to be well in excess of 25,000 people (the number reported disabled is comparable to the number dead). The fact that Facebook groups of vaccine victims had 200,000 users suggests that more than 1 in 1,000 are suffering from significant long-term impacts; people with minor temporary reactions have little incentive to seek out and sign up for a vaccine side-effects group.

People who claim “the clinical trials showed no significant side effects so it must be safe” have a tough time explaining how these facebook groups were so large before they were deleted. If you think the vaccines are so safe, show me the severity analysis of the 200,000 people there. These groups don’t appear with the influenza vaccine. You never see neurological effects like this in such high volume with a safe vaccine.

Some have cited the emergence of the Delta variant as changing the math to favor vaccination even if the vaccine is unsafe. But the case fatality rate (CFR) of the Delta variant is only 0.1 percent compared to the CFR of 1.9 percent for the original virus (alpha) according to UK government data. The argument that the lower CFR of delta is due to the higher number of vaccinated people isn’t very credible since the Eta variant has a 2.7 percent CFR.

Early treatments are a more effective and safer option than the current vaccines. We can achieve all of the objectives of the current vaccination program (herd immunity, eradication of the virus, re-opening our economy, ditching of masks) with fewer deaths and near zero serious side effects. In addition, we would have less problem with variants since variants are less likely to be generated if everyone is naturally immune. So why not promote early treatments? Why not give them a try for a month while we hit the pause button on the vaccines? Would that be so bad?

Allowing natural infection will impart broad natural immunity. We should instruct the population how to treat early with early treatment protocols as soon as they believe they are infected. People should have the drugs on-hand so that treatment can be started without delay after speaking with their doctor. This results in superior risk reduction in terms of fewer fatalities and side effects compared to the current vaccines.

There was never a need for masking or social distancing as COVID is very treatable when treated early. Nobody has to die or be hospitalized. We can get to herd immunity quickly this way. The key is to treat the virus early with a proven early treatment cocktail of repurposed drugs, adding novel antivirals if/when available.

Unfortunately, the NIH has unethically suppressed all early treatments in order to push the vaccine narrative. This is clear with the publication of a systematic review of ivermectin, the highest level of evidence possible. Yet the NIH and WHO pretend that it never happened. It isn’t even acknowledged that the systematic review came out. There has never been a peer-reviewed systematic review that was later overturned. This is why they are the top of the evidence pyramid.

Early treatments were never funded. When evidence came in they worked, the NIH ignored it. The corruption at the NIH and FDA should be corrected by Congress. Now.

To prove the point about the unethical suppression of early treatments, I offered $2M to anyone who could show that the NIH got it right. Nobody stepped forward.

Similarly, I offered $1M to anyone who could show that the vaccines are safe. No takers, not even the drug companies.

If a safe sterilizing vaccine can be developed, we should test it adequately for safety before deploying it. We should not cut corners on safety again; with early treatments, there is no need to rush this.

Major medical journals have lost objectivity in publishing papers that go against the “safe” narrative. For example, the NEJM rejected a Letter to the Editor pointing out a flaw in a paper showing vaccines were safe for pregnant women. The Letter showed an alarming statistic. The NEJM refused to reveal their reasoning for the rejection. Three editors quit a journal after a peer-reviewed paper was published that showed that vaccination may cause more harm than good. Those who quit provided no evidence that the paper was in error.

The censorship of legitimate medical information on social networks must end. These networks are the new “public square” and should be regulated so that people are free to express their opinions to anyone who chooses to listen. There should be heavy monetary penalties for suppressing medical information that has the potential to save lives. Social networks should be required to compensate all those people who have been harmed by their actions.

Never again should we deploy a vaccine on the American public without proper testing and without informed consent. Databases such as V-SAFE that track safety data should be made transparent. Am I the only person who thinks that is a problem?

VAERS reporting should be required and the VAERS system should be modernized so that it is easy to use and results in records with consistent field coding. There should be a smaller lag time to get records into the database, all false reports should be 100% enforced as a criminal act, and the safety signal monitoring should be much stronger.

The cost-benefit analysis of the current gene-based vaccines for anyone of any age is at best a wash according to the scientific literature (new paper published June 24, 2021). This peer-reviewed paper looked at the real cost-benefit analysis and concluded that “This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.” As far as I know, this is the most optimistic of all the papers looking at actual death rates of COVID vs. the vaccine. All the other ones are even worse for the vaccine.

Independent analysis by a statistician friend shows a similar effect. Like me, Mathew has no axe to grind here, just trying to get at the truth of the risk/benefit for the current vaccines. His conclusion: “More importantly, I also still disagree with the mass vaccination program. In particular, nearly all lives saved are in the high risk group. While vaccinating those in the low risk group might decrease spread into the high risk group, that’s asking young healthy people to act as human shields.

I also believe that when the vaccine deaths and adverse events are finally tallied and compared to either a ring vaccination strategy or combination ring vaccination and early treatment strategy, the current plan will look quite foolish and possibly even nefarious.”

Since the focus today is on getting kids vaccinated, I ran the numbers in the VAERS database for 20-24 year olds and 25-29 year olds. In both age ranges, the number of deaths caused by the vaccine outnumber the number of deaths saved. The vaccines caused 1.89 deaths per 100,000 (ages 25-29) and 1.74 deaths per 100,000 (ages 20-24).

This means the vaccines are net killing machines since they kill more people than they save (.3 to 1.0 lives per 100K saved according to the most recent CDC presentation). My calculations are in the body of this document and the calculations show no net benefit for any age group based on real-world data from the US and UK.

The comparison is even more extreme if we tell kids to ignore the current CDC advice and use an early treatment program. In that case, we can reduce the death rate by more than two orders of magnitude from COVID, so that the number of lives saved by the vaccine is fewer than 1 in 10M. This means the vaccines need to be less toxic than the influenza vaccine (which has a death rate of 1 in 10M) in order to be considered. They are not even close to that. Not by a country mile.

For older people, the numbers don’t work out either. We looked at the UK data for <50 and >50 and we found that the absolute death rate is very small for <50 group. There was a high relative risk reduction, but the absolute deaths were small. If the vaccine kills more than 1 in 1 million, it’s game over for the vaccine being useful. For age >50, the UK data shows that even if the vaccines killed nobody, it is not beneficial. So when you factor the death rate of the vaccines and early treatment as the other option, the case is extremely lopsided.

In short, because the current vaccines are so dangerous and early treatment is so effective (relative risk reduction of 100 or more with no permanent side effects), there is no reasonable case that can be made for vaccinating any age group.

Although we just looked at deaths in the analysis above, the same can be true for other side effects as well: the range and intensity of side effects from the vaccine dwarf anything seen in natural COVID. It’s even a more stark contrast when early treatment is added to the mix.

Long term, untreated vax patients and untreated COVID patients are virtually identical in terms of symptoms (thanks to Ram Yogendra for that insight). By vaccinating patients, we are essentially giving a portion of those vaccinated long hauler COVID.

The case numbers in the UK (one of the most heavily vaccinated countries) are now climbing. It suggests we should have listened to the arguments of Geert Vanden Bossche, one of the most famous scientists in the vaccine field, which are further clarified in this excellent video by Chris Martenson which points out that there are really only two ways out of the pandemic: a sterilizing vaccine (using the complete virus as the antigen) or allowing infection and treating with early treatment leading to natural immunity.

The Yellow Card system in the UK showed a similar safety signal. Independent analysis of that data by an expert in medical evidence concluded that the vaccines are unsafe for use in humans. It wasn’t a close call. The death rates from the vaccines are far greater than any absolute risk reduction.

This is taken from a very long article. Read the rest here: docs.google.com

August 11, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

How A Healthy Person Became A ‘Case’ Of Disease In 2020-21

By Dr. Judy Wilyman | Vaccination Decisions | August 11, 2021

Welcome to Vaccination Decisions Newsletter 280. This is my global newsletter sent from Perth, Western Australia that has enabled me to contribute my university research to the global debate on vaccines for the last eight years.

This came to an end on 10th October 2020 when MailChimp censored my newsletter by disabling my account. Did you know that Mailchimp has been in partnership with the US CDC since 2018?

In 2015 I completed a PhD investigating the reasons for the decline in deaths and hospitalisations (risk) to infectious diseases by 1950 in Australia – and in all developed countries. This included an investigation into the role that vaccines played in this decline.

I set up this newsletter in 2012 when I recognised that this public interest science was being suppressed from public debate in all the official channels. This is the result of powerful industry-lobby groups in Australia (and globally) that are influencing all media outlets and research institutions.

Due to this global newsletter my PhD has now been downloaded thousands of times and in March 2020 my book, “Vaccination: Australia’s Loss of Health Freedom”, became available just as everyone globally was being locked down.

This happened because in 2020-21 all the traditional measures for controlling infectious diseases were reversed for the first time in history by the World Health Organisation (WHO). This organisation, advised by the corporate-public partnerships in the GAVI alliance, including the Federation of Pharmaceutical Companies, falsely claimed that healthy (asymptomatic) people are a ‘risk’ to the community if the virus is identified in their body.

This was stated by the WHO scientists in March 2020 even though the WHO had no data to base this claim on in March 2020. Remember, this novel Coronavirus 2019 (SARS-Cov-2) only appeared in January 2020 and there was no evidence provided to support the statement that healthy people without symptoms were a risk to the community.

It was being assumed that a positive PCR result, a test that cannot diagnose disease, indicated an asymptomatic ‘case’ of disease. 

This assumption has led to journalists and health departments reporting healthy people as a ‘case’ of disease in 2020-21, wildly inflating the risk from this alleged new flu virus in the media. This false assumption has led to healthy people being locked up in quarantine for two weeks as well as to the unnecessary masking of healthy people, social distancing and isolating of the elderly.

The mainstream media is not required to list the symptoms of the ‘cases’ of disease they are reporting, and this has enabled the government to hide this fact. This allows the media to frighten the public with cases of disease that are healthy people (no symptoms), and deaths that are elderly people with co-morbidity, that die with the flu every year. The difference is that this year, the media is reporting these deaths – normally you do not hear about them.

The fact that the WHO did not have any evidence in March 2020 to support the claim that ‘asymptomatic’ people are a risk to society, is provided by Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, on 8 June 2020 – only three months after the ‘pandemic’ was declared. This WHO spokesperson appears to understand the traditional measures of controlling infectious diseases because she states that you isolate the people with symptoms and trace their contacts to prevent transmission.

However, even though she states that asymptomatic transmission is ‘very rare’, because the WHO doesn’t have any data to claim otherwise, she concludes that the WHO still advises that ‘some people without symptoms can still transmit the virus on.’

The flaw in this WHO statement is that there is a difference between transmitting the virus and transmitting disease. Whilst the virus can be passed on from a sub-clinical infection this does not lead to disease in the majority of cases in countries with good public health infrastructure.

Infection only leads to disease when there are poor environmental conditions or poor host characteristics. Hence, asymptomatic people do not transmit disease in the population, they transmit infection that is mostly beneficial when good conditions exist: asymptomatic ‘cases’ generate natural herd immunity.

This is the reason why the WHO changed the definition of ‘herd immunity’ in December 2020.

It was to claim that only vaccine created herd immunity would be successful with COVID19 disease. This was claimed without any risk-benefit data for the COVID19 vaccine: this drug had not been trialled in humans in December 2020.

The WHO changed this definition without providing any scientific evidence to support the claim that ‘vaccines can create herd immunity’ and without any scrutiny from the scientific community. Therefore, the claim has not been validated and it has been done to support the WHO’s desired outcome; to make the world reliant on vaccines.

Viruses are around us all the time and we do not need to eradicate them to live without disease. This is because viruses on their own cannot cause disease: the cause of disease from infectious agents is multifactorial.

This is where the GAVI/ WHO partnerships have deceived the public in 2020. Scientists have known since 1950 that viruses mostly cause sub-clinical infections, that never develop disease symptoms, due to improvements in public health infrastructure and nutrition.

It is these sub-clinical infections that resulted in herd immunity in the population of developed countries by 1950/60. This led public health officials to claim that ‘infectious deaths fell before widespread vaccination was implemented’ (Fiona Stanley, Australian of the Year for Public Health, 2003). Even smallpox of cases with symptoms was not controlled until after 1950 when isolation of cases with symptoms and case-tracing strategies played a significant role in the decline of this disease.

The fraudulent claims that are being made by the WHO are effectively manipulating public behaviour because the corporate-sponsored mainstream media and big tech companies are working together to censor public debate.

If this was a conspiracy theory, as the mainstream media would like you to believe, I would have hoped that the industry-lobby groups who petitioned to have my PhD removed in 2016 – after it was published on the University website – were successful. But they weren’t.

The University stood by this thesis because it provided the evidence to support the fact that global health policy is being designed by a collaboration of industry-partners. This is also supported by the extreme censorship of many doctors, scientists, and activists also providing this evidence to you in 2021. Science is only validated when it stands up to scrutiny from the community, so human health is at serious risk until we have this scientific debate.

August 11, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

The five key Covid truths that could have saved us from self-destruction

By Neville Hodgkinson | TCW Defending Freedom | August 11, 2021

DOCTORS, lawyers and other patient advocates around the world are challenging the legality, ethics and scientific basis of the global drive to vaccinate the entire population, including children, against Covid-19. But even as they raise their voices, the intensity of censorship is increasing.

The latest victim is cardiologist, internal disease specialist, epidemiologist and academic researcher Dr Peter McCullough, editor-in-chief of two medical journals and author of over 600 peer-reviewed publications in the US National Library of Medicine, more than 45 of them dedicated to Covid-19. He has managed the care of more than 100 Covid patients as well as advising on hundreds more worldwide.

When this top American doctor spoke out on the effectiveness of early treatment, and raised questions over the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines, he began to find himself a pariah among colleagues.

He now faces what he calls ‘a dark cloud of censorship and reprisal’, including a legal action against which his attorneys were filing a defence last week.

Google his name, and you find at the top of the list an outrageously biased stand-alone item about the lawsuit, in which the online journal Medpage Today accuses him of ‘Dishing Out Vax Falsehoods’.

An information war is under way, and though most of the weapons are in the hands of governmental and drug company-funded sources, the resistance movement is growing.

McCullough has prepared what he calls ‘five key messages of scientific truth that I want everybody to understand about the virus and the pandemic.’  He has all the necessary scientific back-up to support his claims.

If his messages were to be emblazoned across every media outlet in this land and abroad, there would be a chance of ending the socially and economically destructive policies that have so far cost UK taxpayers an incredible £400billion in additional public spending directly attributable to Covid-19.

The five messages are:

1. The virus is not spread asymptomatically. That is, only sick people give it to other people.

2. We should stop testing symptomless people. That just generates false positives – creating extra ‘cases’ and extra concerns. ‘There shouldn’t be a single person on Earth that should undergo an asymptomatic test or a test done on a routine basis.  For any reason. People ought to just walk past these testing stations. They have absolutely no standing whatsoever.’

3. Natural immunity is robust, complete, and durable. It cannot be improved by vaccination, or any other method. A person who has developed immunity after exposure to the virus is at minimal risk of becoming seriously ill again from Covid. Where apparent cases of that kind have been reported, a misinterpretation in the test procedure has been responsible.

Even with loosely defined cases, 11 studies involving 650,000 individuals showed a long-term recurrence rate of only 0.2 per cent. ‘Someone who is naturally immune can walk up to someone who has Covid-19, get a big cough in the face, and they are not going to get the illness.’

4. Covid-19, no matter what the variant, is easily treatable at home with simple, available drugs. About 88 per cent of hospitalisation and death is avoidable with early treatment. ‘The only way people end up in hospital and have a miserable time is when they receive no treatment.’

It’s easy to treat the illness early on, when the symptoms are mild. It has three major components: Viral replication, inflammation, and thrombosis – blood clots. Once these develop, they lower oxygen levels in the lungs and are hard to reverse.

5. The current Covid vaccines – AstraZeneca, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, and Moderna – are obsolete. ‘They do not cover the new variants. Patients are being hospitalised and getting sick, despite having the vaccines.’ And because of the record levels of deaths and injuries reported after the jabs, they should be considered ‘unsafe and unfit for human use.’

McCullough delivers this message in a four-minute video posted on LifeSite News.

It could save many lives, and perhaps even avoid any further fall into lockdown lunacy, if the link were to be sent to every doctor and every home in the UK.

To all who come across this article, please take a look at the video and judge for yourself: Is this some anti-vax maniac pushing a self-serving agenda? Or a highly-experienced, concerned doctor offering valuable insights into Covid realities, and fighting for a more rational, science-based treatment approach?

This treatment guide, co-authored by McCullough and Dr Elizabeth Lee Vliet, president and CEO of the Truth for Health Foundation (THF), a Christian-based US charity founded by doctors, could also be widely distributed. Vliet is a past director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Last week McCullough was among a team of physicians, scientists, clergy and patient advocates presenting ‘factual scientific and medical data previously kept from people around the world’ at the LifeSite-sponsored THF conference called Stop The Shot.  

The foundation said the aim was ‘to help all of us be able to save lives and expose the threats to human health with these “shots” being forced on people without proper informed consent.’

Americans have not seen a single press briefing on vaccine safety, despite more than 100,000 people having died or been hospitalised in the wake of the jab, McCullough said.

‘My patients ask me: Doctor, am I going to be someone who dies after being hospitalised? I tell them: I don’t know, because our government is not telling us anything.

‘I had patients ask me today: Doctor, I hear the vaccine is failing. My friends have gotten the vaccine, but they’re getting sick with Covid, the Delta variant. Which vaccine is the best? Which one protects best against Delta? I say: I don’t know, because our government hasn’t told us anything.

‘So part of this conference is to have everyone start to really get on edge and demand of their government officials, their representatives, their hospital representatives, information – fair information.

‘If somebody gets on TV and says the vaccines are safe and effective, that’s misinformation. There’s nothing to suggest that these vaccines are safe and there’s nothing to suggest right now, based on the reports that we’re seeing, that they’re effective.  We’re almost seeing a wholesale failure of the vaccine programme. So we have to take action now with early treatment.’

The situation is similar in the UK, where nearly 340,000 adverse reactions of varying severity, including 1,500 deaths, have been reported. With 84million shots administered, regulators insist that apart from local reactions to the jab, most of the deaths and injuries are coincidental.

That stand is highly questionable. In Germany, the Federation of Pathologists is urging that more autopsies should be conducted when people die in the wake of vaccination, to either exclude or prove a cause-and-effect link.

The call follows a study by Dr Peter Schirmacher, acting chairman of the German Society of Pathology, in which he performed autopsies on 40 people who had died within two weeks of the jab.

He found that 30-40 per cent of the deaths could be directly attributed to rare but serious adverse effects from the vaccine such as a blood clot in the brain, or autoimmune disease. He believes there may be many such cases in which the deaths go unnoticed, because doctors don’t make the link with the vaccine and certify the death as from natural causes.

August 11, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Trust The Science!

Corbett • 08/10/2021

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

We are being told to trust the science. But what science? From which scientists? Join James for this week’s edition of The Corbett Report podcast as he explores the transparent lies of the “settled science” crowd and how those lies will increasingly be used to run our lives in the new biosecurity state.

Watch on Archive / BitChute / Minds / Odysee / YouTube or Download the mp4

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).

SHOW NOTES:

Whistleblowers Expose Corruption in EPA Chemical Safety Office

Leaked Audio Shows Pressure to Overrule Scientists in “Hair-on-Fire” Cases

The Disappearing Male

Episode 339 – Meet Paul Ehrlich, Pseudoscience Charlatan

Stupid Conspiracy Theorists! Chemicals Aren’t Turning The Frogs GAY!!

Episode 094 – You Are Being Sterilized

Episode 121 – Know Your Toxins: BPA

Shanna Swan: ‘Most couples may have to use assisted reproduction by 2045’

Summer Reading List

Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race

Sperm Count Culture War

New World Next Week covers EPA whistleblowers

August 11, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

The Cyber Espionage State of Israel

By Vladimir Platov – New Eastern Outlook – 10.08.2021

After several dozen international publications, including The Washington Post and The Guardian, simultaneously reported in mid-July on a major investigation by Amnesty International and Forbidden Stories over Israel’s Pegasus spyware, another scandal over Israeli cyber-spying activities erupted.

According to the articles, not only Israel itself but also dozens of governments used Israeli technology to hack the phones of politicians, journalists, opposition activists, and human rights activists. Tens of thousands of phones were tapped. A direct trace is also evident in Israel’s complicity in the cyber-surveillance of the murdered Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, hence the responsibility for the events that happened to him. The investigation contains a great deal of information about human rights abuses in many regions of the world through programs developed by Israel and, in particular, by the NSO Group, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. It has become apparent to everyone that not only government services are engaged in cyber espionage in Israel but, in addition to the NSO Group, there are other Israeli companies competing with each other: they manufacture similar products and supply them to those who commit similar crimes. There are also technologies possessed exclusively by the Israeli security and intelligence agencies, which provide their services to Israel’s close friends, including several Arab states.

As the British publication Al-Quds-Al-Arabi stresses, “the current scandal could be much more severe if all information about Israel’s activities in providing repressive regimes with electronic and non-electronic means of espionage is made public, not to mention the scale of international involvement in its crimes. First, they are cybercrimes, later escalating into actual prosecution, abuse, and imprisonment, often to the point of intentional homicide.”

It is now clear to all: even by Israeli standards, Pegasus technology is a weapon since the license to sell it is a permit for “arms trade” issued by the Export Control Department of the Israeli Ministry of Defense. According to information published in recent years, Israeli security forces have used the program to spy on Palestinian and Arab residents and to control politicians inside Israel and in many countries worldwide.  For instance, in the list of phone numbers tracked by the Pegasus spyware, one of the numbers of Emmanuel Macron, the numbers of former French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe and 14 ministers of the country have already been identified since 2017, as Le Monde wrote. According to The Washington Post, 14 heads of state were tracked through Pegasus, including South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Iraqi President Barham Salih, King Mohammed V of Morocco, Imran Khan, Prime Minister of Pakistan, and others.

Accordingly, it is pretty understandable that in addition to whoever Israel sold a license to use the Pegasus spyware, the Jewish State also had every opportunity to control the behavior of foreign politicians using this spyware. And this justifies the natural demand of any foreign public for a detailed report from Tel Aviv on such illegal activities against foreign nationals.

However, there also have been other revelations of the use of cyber spyware to spy on foreign politicians before. So, in 2014, John Kerry, then serving as US Secretary of State, became a victim of unauthorized wiretapping during his Middle East tour, as reported by the German Spiegel, citing its own sources.

At the end of 2020, the Citizen Lab, University of Toronto, published a report that disclosed the hacking of the iPhones of dozens of Al Jazeera TV Channel employees using technology developed in Israel.

Modern warfare is increasingly moving into cyberspace. With its innovative and well-funded technology and active military intelligence apparatus, Israel is one of the most advanced players in cyber warfare. Israel’s energetic participation in these wars has long been no secret, as has the fact that it was Israel that was behind the Stuxnet, Duku, and Flame attacks on Iran a few years ago. According to articles published by The Washington Post, Israel had something to do with the May 2020 cyberattack on the Iranian port of Shahid Rajaee in Bandar Abbas, the Hormozgan Province, which disabled computers tracking ship and truck traffic at the port located in the strategic area of the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf.

The fact that Israel has become a leading exporter of civilian spying equipment was revealed back in 2018 by a Haaretz study covering 15 countries. This study showed that Israeli spyware allows almost total control and even command over cell phones: detecting their location, recording phone conversations, photographing areas near the phone, reading and writing text messages and emails, downloading applications, and infiltrating existing applications, accessing photos, clips, calendar reminders, and contact lists. And all this in complete secrecy.

Privacy International has been publishing research on the international trade in espionage technology since 1995. The latest report notes the tremendous growth of the industry, in which some three dozen Israeli firms are now very active. International data shows that Israel accounts for up to 20% of the global cyber market, and investments in Israeli startups in this industry account for more than 20% of the total amount in the world. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF), in turn, played the role of a business hothouse as their technology intelligence units grew and their graduates applied their knowledge to a multitude of startups.

Unit 8200, also known as the Central Collection Unit of the Intelligence Corps, sometimes referred to as the Israeli SIGINT National Unit (ISNU), covers the offensive spectrum of military use of cyber capabilities. It reports to the Israeli Military Intelligence (AMAN). It has rather strong operational capabilities and close ties with its US counterpart, the NSA. According to some estimates, more than 5,000 soldiers are assigned to Unit 8200, enabling the latter to conduct offensive cyber operations worldwide.

Tracking Israeli exports of spy devices is hampered by the fact that in many cases, they are not exported from Israel; many companies prefer to register abroad or work there for a variety of reasons: cheap labor, favorable taxation policies, greater secrecy, weak government regulation and the desire to disguise the Israeli origin of systems to penetrate markets in hostile countries.

For example, Circles Technologies, one of the leading companies operating in Europe, has created a product that uses the weakness of the cellular network to find devices. A phone number can be determined as to which cellular cell it is connected to and approximately where it is located.

Another system, widespread in the Israeli cyber industry, focuses on gathering information from social media. These are non-aggressive systems that are not under the control of the Ministry of Defense. They concentrate on open-source information and analyze it in a way that concludes big data. In Latin America, for example, there is little trace of Israeli activity. Still, AP news agency investigations show that in 2015 an Israeli company, Verint, set up a $22 million monitoring base in Peru capable of tracking satellite, wireless and fixed-line communications with 5,000 targets and recording conversations simultaneously.

Notably, Israel was a member of the fifth United Nations Group of Governmental Experts (UNGGE) on Information and Telecommunications and the Geneva Dialogue on Responsible Behavior in Cyberspace, thus establishing acceptable behavior norms for the cyberspace. Israel is also a signatory to the Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe (2019) and has established bilateral cooperative relationships (e.g., with the United States in 2016, Bulgaria in 2018, and Australia in 2017). Therefore, the discovery of offenses using the Pegasus spyware imposes a special responsibility on Israel.

As the British Al-Quds-Al-Arabi publication stresses, Israel is committing cybercrimes, and it is time to bring it to justice. The latest scandal is the perfect opportunity to do just that.

Vladimir Platov is an expert on the Middle East.

August 10, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , , | Leave a comment

Was the Tanker Attack an Israeli False Flag?

By PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • AUGUST 10, 2021

In the United States we now live under a government that largely operates in secret, headed by an executive that ignores the constitutional separation of powers and backed by a legislature that is more interested in social engineering than in benefitting the American people. The US, together with its best friend and faux ally Israel, has become the ultimate rogue nation, asserting its right to attack anyone at any time who refuses to recognize Washington’s leadership. America is a country in decline, its influence having been eroded by a string of foreign policy and military disasters starting with Vietnam and more recently including Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen and the Ukraine. As a result, respect for the United States has plummeted most particularly over the past twenty years since the War on Terror was declared and the country has become a debtor nation as it prints money to sustain a pointless policy of global hegemony which no one else either desires or respects.

It has been argued in some circles that the hopelessly ignorant Donald Trump and the dementia plagued Joe Biden have done one positive thing, and that has been to keep us out of an actual shooting war with anyone able to retaliate in kind, which means in practice Russia and possibly China. Even if that were so, one might question a clumsy foreign policy devoid of any genuine national interest that is a train wreck waiting to happen. It has no off switch and has pushed America’s two principal rivals into becoming willy-nilly de facto enemies, something which neither Moscow nor Beijing wished to see develop.

Contrary to the claims that Trump and Biden are war-shy, both men have in fact committed war crimes by carrying out attacks on targets in both Syria and Iraq, to include the assassination of senior Iranian general Qasim Soleimani in January 2020. Though it was claimed at the time that the attacks were retaliatory, evidence supporting that view was either non-existent or deliberately fabricated.

Part of the problem for Washington is that the US had inextricably tied itself to worthless so-called allies in the Middle East, most notably Israel and Saudi Arabia. The real danger is not that Joe Biden or Kamala Harris will do something really stupid but rather that Riyadh or Jerusalem will get involved in something over their heads and demand, as “allies,” that they be bailed out by Uncle Sam. Biden will be unable to resist, particularly if it is the Israel Lobby that is doing the pushing.

Perhaps one of the more interesting news plus analysis articles along those lines that I have read in a while appeared last week in the Business Insider, written by one Mitchell Plitnick, who is described as president of ReThinking Foreign Policy. The article bears the headline “Russia and Israel may be on a collision course in Syria” and it argues that Russia’s commitment to Syria and Israel’s interest in actively deterring Iran and its proxies are irreconcilable, with the US ending up in an extremely difficult position which could easily lead to its involvement in what could become a new shooting war. The White House would have to tread very carefully as it would likely want to avoid sending the wrong signals either to Moscow or Jerusalem, but that realization may be beyond the thinking of the warhawks on the National Security Council.

To place the Plitnick article in its current context of rumors of wars, one might cite yet another piece in Business Insider about the July 30th explosive drone attack on an oil tanker off the coast of Oman in the northern Indian Ocean, which killed two crewmen, a Briton and a Romanian. The bombing was immediately attributed to Iran by both Israel and Washington, though the only proof presented was that the fragments of the drone appeared to demonstrate that it was Iranian made, which means little as the device is available to and used by various players throughout the Middle East and in central Asia.

The tanker in question was the MT Mercer Street, sailing under a Liberian flag but Japanese-owned and managed by Zodiac Maritime, an international ship management company headquartered in London and owned by Israeli shipping magnate Eyal Ofer. It was empty, sailing to pick up a cargo, and had a mixed international crew. Inevitably, initial media reporting depended on analysis by the US and Israel, which saw the attack as a warning or retaliatory strike executed or ordered by the newly elected government currently assuming control in Tehran.

US Secretary of State Tony Blinken, who could not possibly have known who carried out the attack, was not shy about expressing his “authoritative” viewpoint, asserting that “We are confident that Iran conducted this attack. We are working with our partners to consider our next steps and consulting with governments inside the region and beyond on an appropriate response, which will be forthcoming.”

The US Central Command (CENTCOM) also all too quickly pointed to Iran, stating that “The use of Iranian designed and produced one way attack ‘kamikaze’ UAVs is a growing trend in the region. They are actively used by Iran and their proxies against coalition forces in the region, to include targets in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.”

Tehran denied that it had carried out the attack but the Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz was not accepting that and threatened to attack Iran, saying predictably that “We are at a point where we need to take military action against Iran. The world needs to take action against Iran now… Now is the time for deeds — words are not enough. … It is time for diplomatic, economic and even military deeds. Otherwise the attacks will continue.” Gantz also confirmed that “Israel is ready to attack Iran, yes…”

New Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett also made the same demand, saying Israel could “…act alone. They can’t sit calmly in Tehran while igniting the entire Middle East — that’s over. We are working to enlist the whole world, but when the time comes, we know how to act alone.” If the level of verbal vituperation coming out of Israel is anything to go by, an attack on Iran would appear to be imminent.

After the attack on the MT Mercer Street, there soon followed the panicked account the panicked account of an alleged hijacking of a second tanker by personnel initially reported to be wearing “Iranian military uniforms.” The “… hijacking incident in international waters in the Gulf of Oman” ended peacefully however. The US State Department subsequently reported that “We can confirm that personnel have left the Panama-flagged Asphalt Princess… We believe that these personnel were Iranian, but we’re not in a position to confirm this at this time.”

So, the United States government does not actually know who did what to whom but is evidently willing to indict Iran and look the other way if Israel should choose to start a war. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan is right to compare the drone attack on the Mercer Street to the alleged Gulf of Tonkin Incident in 1964, which was deliberately distorted by the Lyndon B. Johnson Administration and used to justify rapid escalation of US involvement in the Vietnam War. Buchanan observes that it is by no means clear that Iran was behind the Mercer Street attack and there are a number of good reasons to doubt it, including Iranian hopes to have sanctions against its economy lifted which will require best behavior. Also, Iran would have known that it would be blamed for such an incident in any event, so why should it risk going to war with Israel and the US, a war that it knows it cannot win?

Buchanan observes that whoever attacked the tanker wants war and also to derail any negotiations to de-sanction Iran, but he stops short of suggesting who that might be. The answer is of course Israel, engaging in a false flag operation employing an Iranian produced drone. And I would add to Buchanan’s comments that there is in any event a terrible stink of hypocrisy over the threat of war to avenge the tanker incident. Israel has attacked Iranian ships in the past and has been regularly bombing Syria in often successful attempts to kill Iranians who are, by the way, in the country at the invitation of its legitimate government. Zionist Joe Biden has yet to condemn those war crimes, nor has the suddenly aroused Tony Blinken. And Joe, who surely knows that neither Syria nor Iran threatens the United States, also continues to keep American troops in Syria, occupying a large part of the country, which directly confront the Kremlin’s forces. Israel wants a war that will inevitably involve the United States and maybe also Russia to some degree as collateral damage. Will it get that or will Biden have the courage to say “No!”

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org

August 10, 2021 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

US has NO mandate to keep troops in Syria & it’s interpretation of international law is ‘ridiculous’: Russian ambassador

By Jonny Tickle | RT | August 10, 2021

Washington has no legal mandate to keep its armed forces in Syria, and the presence of American soldiers in the country contradicts the 2015 UN Security Council resolution that called for a ceasefire and a political settlement.

That’s according to the Russian embassy in Washington, which responded to a tweet by Wayne Marotto, the official military spokesman for Operation Inherent Resolve, the American campaign in the Middle East to defeat ISIS.

Writing on social media, Marotto said that the US has a “clear mandate under international law” to keep boots on the ground in Syria.

On Monday night, the Russian Embassy publicly disagreed.

“It’s a matter of fact that US armed forces have no legal mandate to stay in Syria. Your interpretation of UNSCR 2254 is just ridiculous. Please, read the document thoroughly,” the diplomatic mission said, including a link to the text.

Passed in 2015, UNSCR 2254 calls for all parties to immediately end attacks against civilian targets but allows offensives against groups determined to be “terrorists” by the UN Security Council, such as ISIS. It also planned to create a Syrian-led political transition with free and fair elections.

As things stand, both Moscow and Washington have troops on the ground in Syria. The Russian operation began in 2015, after Syrian President Bashar Assad requested military aid from the Kremlin, in a legal move. However, according to international law, the US military presence is an illegal occupation, because the American troops entered the country without an invitation from the government.

August 10, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , , | Leave a comment

The IPCC Summary For Policymakers

image

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/#FullReport
By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | August 10, 2021

If we ignore all of the alarmist rhetoric in the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers, the real nitty gritty lies in these four sections:

1) Extreme Rainfall

image

image

In fact there are only two areas with sufficient data:

a) Central North America

It is certainly true that rainfall has increased there during recent decades, but that is in comparison with the devastating droughts which used to affect the region up to the 1960s.

In other words, heavy rainfall there has been greatly beneficial.

image

b) Northern Europe (ie Scandinavia)

Where I strongly suspect it would make any real difference!

As for floods, this is what the as yet unpublished Full Report has to say:

image

So, some areas are experiencing more floods, and others less!

2) Droughts

image

image

Again, there are just two areas with sufficient data:

a) West North America

Since the mid 20thC, rainfall appears to have declined, but since the start of records in 1895, there is actually a slightly increasing trend in precipitation:

image

b) Mediterranean

This appears to be the only region where there is any confidence of a long term trend, and only medium confidence at that.

What is apparent is that the widespread drought shown in this section is at odds with the increased precipitation in the first section. It is also plainly nonsense to claim that drought is increasing in India, for instance, where we know monsoon rainfall has increased significantly since the disastrous droughts of the 1960s and 70s.

3) Tropical Cyclones

image

The strengthening of hurricanes in the last four decades is an effect of the AMO, as NOAA explain:

image

https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/faq/amo_faq.php

As the IPCC admit, they cannot find any longer term trends. Equally there is no actual evidence to back up claims of the heavier rainfall, which attribution studies allege is happening.

4) Sea Level Rise

image

I think the IPCC’s own chart highlights what a nonsense their projections are!

Conclusion

The reality is that our weather is no worse now than it was 150 years ago. Indeed I would strongly suggest that governments all around the world would be terrified if they were told we were going back to the climate Little Ice Age.

Think I’m kidding? This was exactly what scientists thought was going to happen during the global cooldown in the 1970s, and governments were genuinely alarmed.

All that is left in the IPCC report is a host of highly subjective projections of what might happen in the future.

August 10, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Assembling Covid Jigsaw Pieces Into a Complete Pandemic Picture

The Daily Sceptic | August 10, 2021

We’re publishing an important piece today by Anthony Brookes, a Professor of Genomics and Health Data Science at the University of Leicester, in which he explains why the SARS-CoV-2 virus spreads across different populations in waves separated by three or four months. His theory is similar to that put forward by Dr Will Jones, namely, that the overall immunity levels in most populations are quite high, but need to be ‘topped up’ each time a new variant appears, causing infections to rise and then fall. Importantly, the decline in infections has little or nothing to do with non-pharmaceutical interventions – which is why daily cases started to decline before the second and third lockdowns were imposed in the U.K. and why the easing of restrictions on July 19th hasn’t caused an ‘exit wave’ – or the vaccine roll-out, since vaccines don’t appear to have much impact on infection or transmission.

Here is the abstract of Prof Brookes’s article:

  • A series of SARS-CoV-2 variants have arisen, many of which possessed a transient selective advantage that led to a wave of infection that peaked some three-to-four months later. Several such variants have spread globally, though different successful variants have arisen simultaneously in a number of countries. The result is a three-to-four month wave pattern per country, which is also apparent globally.
  • Seasonality affects variant transmissibility. Colder seasons accelerate the growth and increase the size of waves, but the continually changing environment may also differentially affect the relative transmissibility of competing variants (i.e., negatively as well as positively), thereby helping to terminate previously dominant variants and promote the growth of new ones.
  • Overall there is a minimal positive impact from quarantine policy, isolation requirements, Test and Trace regimes, social distancing, masking or other non-pharmaceutical interventions. Initially, these were the only tools in the tool-box of interventionist politicians and scientists. At best they slightly delayed the inevitable, but they also caused considerable collateral harms.
  • Immunity created by SARS-CoV-2 infection, layered on top of pre-existing immunity due to cross-immunity to other coronaviruses, provides good protection against infection, severe disease/death, and being infectious. Immunity created by vaccination also helps protect against serious disease and death, but does little or nothing to provide protection against infection or being infectious (which completely negates the case for vaccine ID cards).
  • Population immunity stems mainly from natural infections, with vaccines adding only slightly to this (and only in recent months). Population immunity is created by societal waves of infection and is somewhat variant-specific. An emerging new variant is able to infect (or re-infect) some fraction of individuals and this serves to top up and broaden the scope of our population immunity to also protect against the new variant.
  • This empirical and data-driven understanding of the pandemic allows us to make predictions. Such predictions don’t look good for some of the U.K.’s new Green List countries. But in these and all other places the ongoing arms-race between viral mutations and growing human immunity will always eventually be won by the human immune system. The virus then becomes a low-level endemic pathogen in equilibrium with its human host species. If this were not the case all humans would have been wiped out by viruses eons ago!

Worth reading in full.

August 10, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

“Imperfect Vaccines And The Evolution Of Pathogen Virulence”

By Bud Bromley | Principia Scientific | August 10, 2021

The medical and scientific community and the world have known for 20 years that vaccines which only treat symptoms without terminating the virus result in more infectious and dangerous disease and higher overall deaths.

Abstract:

… Here we show that vaccines designed to reduce pathogen growth rate and/or toxicity diminish selection against virulent pathogens. The subsequent evolution leads to higher levels of intrinsic virulence and hence to more severe disease in unvaccinated individuals. This evolution can erode any population-wide benefits such that overall mortality rates are unaffected, or even increase, with the level of vaccination coverage. These findings have policy implications for the development and use of vaccines that are not expected to provide full immunity, such as candidate vaccines for malaria. …

~S Gandon 1 , M J Mackinnon, S Nee, A F Read, Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, UK.

Nature.2001 Dec 13;414(6865):751-6. doi: 10.1038/414751a.

In other words, this is the Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE) and immune escape described by brave doctors and scientists who are being blocked by social and mainstream media and ignored by governments and others with sworn duty to protect public health.

August 10, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

EuroMOMO Analysis Indicates That Europe’s Third Wave Was A Blip

By Noah Carl • The Daily Sceptic • August 10, 2021

Has Europe seen two mortality peaks or three? According to many news outlets, the continent experienced a deadly third wave of COVID-19 during the spring of 2021.

“Europe is enduring a grim spring”, says an FT article dated 4th April. “Covid-19 infections, hospitalisations and deaths are rising in many countries”, it goes on to claim. The article presents data suggesting that March saw elevated COVID-19 death rates in a number of European countries.

This characterisation is borne out by Our World in Data’s chart of the daily number of confirmed COVID-19 deaths for the European Union – which is shown below. (The chart for Europe as a whole is highly similar.)

According to the chart, there was a peak of mortality in the spring of 2020, corresponding to the first wave (which afflicted countries such as Italy, Spain and the UK). Then there was another peak of mortality in the winter, corresponding to the second wave (when countries such as Poland, Czechia and Hungary were also afflicted).

And the chart indicates there was an additional peak of mortality in the spring of 2021, corresponding to the third wave. This peak is lower than the first two, but still quite considerable. On 13th April, there were more than 2,800 COVID-19 deaths in Europe (compared to just under 3,600 at the peak of the second wave).

Yet as I’ve noted repeatedly, “confirmed COVID-19 deaths” can be misleading, since some of the people who die of COVID-19 (either shortly after a positive test, or with COVID-19 on the death certificate) would have died anyway. Excess mortality provides a far better gauge of the pandemic’s impact.

Estimates of excess mortality for 26 European countries are provided by researchers at EuroMOMO. The chart below plots excess mortality z-scores (numbers of standard deviations above or below the average) from week 1 of 2020 to week 27 of 2021. I’ve omitted the last three weeks of data, as these are subject to revision.

The first and second wave peaks are clearly visible: the former can be seen at week 14 of 2020, and the latter at week 3 of 2021. By comparison, the peak of the third wave (at week 16 of 2021) is barely noticeable.

It does technically rise above the red line, which the researchers oddly classify as a “substantial increase”. However, increases of this magnitude are seen every few months going all the way back to 2017. Hence the third peak cannot be regarded as a major epidemic wave.

Part of the difference between the two charts may be due to the composition of countries. For example, EuroMOMO does not cover Poland, Romania or Czechia. Having said that, the countries it does include make up the vast majority of Europe’s population, so this probably can’t account for much.

The EuroMOMO analysis indicates that Europe has seen two mortality peaks, not three. In terms of excess mortality, the third wave was just a blip.

August 10, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »