Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

DR RYAN N COLE: A PATHOLOGIST’S SUMMARY OF WHAT THESE INJECTIONS DO TO YOUR BRAIN & OTHER ORGANS

Free Speech Warrior

Extract presentation from America’s Front Line Doctors ‘White Coat Summit’ San Antonio TX July 28, 2021

Dr. Ryan Cole is the CEO and Medical Director of Cole Diagnostics, one of the largest independent labs in the State of Idaho. Dr. Cole is a Mayo Clinic trained Board Certified Pathologist.

He is Board Certified in anatomic and clinical pathology. He has expertise in immunology and virology and also has subspecialty expertise in skin pathology.

He has seen over 350,000 patients in his career.

August 8, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | | Leave a comment

Let’s divide the European Union

By Dr Jiří Weigl | The Reference Frame | July 22, 2021

Last week’s publication of the European Commission’s plan for a green “great leap” in the holy struggle to save the climate has definitively confirmed that the gulf of opinion, ideas, and interests between the EU’s West and its post-communist East has reached an insurmountable dimension.

The EU West, which controls Brussels and all European structures, has completely succumbed to the phantasmagorical progressivist ideology and is not willing to discuss it at all, but on the contrary wants to impose it by force on everyone, regardless of their views. We are in danger of something strongly reminiscent of the [fatal 1620 Battle of] White Mountain and the subsequent 1627-1628 Verneuerte Landesordnung [Restored Land Order, a new constitutional document] which was octroied [by Ferdinand II i.e. circumventing the legislative assembly of the estates], i.e. intolerant foreign domination, ideological monopoly enforced from the position of strength, persecution of those who disagree, de-nationalisation, and disenfranchisement.

This is not an exaggeration. Progressivist anti-humanist pseudo-salvation of the planet cannot do without such actions and suppression of dissent by force.

Hypothetically, the following possible responses are offered:

Submission and relying on somehow surviving again. That may no longer work in today’s world.

Fight within the EU. An unrealistic scenario, because there is no chance of convincing Brussels and the West of the need to change the current policy.

To respect the balance of power and agree with the other dissatisfied parties to divide the whole, whose direction is not to our liking, while preserving the maximum of the positive from the common past.

To come forward individually, which in the current constellation is not a realistic project for which we have the strength.

We have to respect that our Western European partners, disgusted by their current excess of wealth, see a meaningful future only in poverty, sacrifice, and renunciation for the sake of the planet. Let us respect that they want to renounce consumerism, flying, and personal transport, meat-eating, child-bearing, and other pleasures of life. Let us accept that polyamory and marriage for all will take the place of family for them. Let us give our Western friends the pleasures of doing good deeds in opening their borders and caring for all who head to them from the world for an easier life. Let us allow them to live in a multicultural, Islamized society with free choice of gender and total equality for every conceivable minority, protected by the surveillance of inquisitorial political correctness. Let us allow them to have their own experience of the restriction of civil rights and liberties and the only ideology allowed.

However, let us firmly demand that they respect that we – Czechs, Hungarians, Poles, Slovaks, and other Central and Eastern Europeans – do not want to live in such a society, that we did not enter the EU with such goals and they were not outlined to us at the time. We have our own experiences of totalitarianism and social utopias and we do not want to repeat them. We want to live in our own way and not under someone else’s dictates.

Let us try to avoid the imminent conflict and destruction of European cooperation rationally – let us divide today’s EU with respect for one another and preserve the maximum of the good that unites us. Only in this way will we be able to overcome today’s tensions that threaten to destroy the entire current shaky European construct. We Czechs and Slovaks may have something important to say about this. By taking a similar step, we avoided the serious threats after the fall of communism.

As we know, it was not beneficial for anyone to stay on the Titanic after the collision with the iceberg. The European Commission itself put such an iceberg in the EU’s path. Let us try to get off a ship that we cannot stop at any cost if we care about the future of our children. The planet will survive.

August 8, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics | , | Leave a comment

Taliban overruns most of Kunduz as Afghan military clings to strategic city’s airport – reports

RT | August 8, 2021

Taliban militants have captured another provincial capital, Sar-e Pul, and most of the fifth-largest city of Kunduz, according to local officials. Afghan special forces have been deployed in a bid to re-take the latter.

The militants seized all the key government buildings in the two cities overnight, pushing the government troops to military installations on their outskirts. The troops are currently clinging onto the airport in Kunduz, in the north of the country.

“Heavy clashes started yesterday afternoon. All government headquarters are in the control of the Taliban. Only the army base and the airport is with ANDSF [Afghan security forces] from where they are resisting the Taliban,” provincial lawmaker Amruddin Wali told Reuters.

Footage circulating online shows the militants roaming the city streets en masse, with the group’s flags hoisted on multiple military vehicles.

Kunduz’s market was destroyed in the fighting, with disturbing footage purporting to show the whole location on fire. It was not immediately clear how exactly the market was obliterated, with some reports suggesting it was targeted by American warplanes supporting the Afghan troops. On Saturday, the US military launched airstrikes against the Taliban in a bid to halt its offensive, sending in B-52 Stratofortress strategic bombers and AC-130 Spectre gunships.

https://twitter.com/NaseebKhanZ/status/1424274123824508928?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1424274123824508928%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fnews%2F531470-taliban-overruns-kunduz-afghanistan%2F

Although the Taliban claimed it was in full control of Kunduz, the government said it had re-deployed special forces units to the city and was trying to push back the militants. A short video released by Afghan military spokesperson Fawad Aman shows special forces troops advancing through the streets, firing at unseen adversaries.

The situation in the northwestern city of Sar-e Pul appears to be similar to that in Kunduz. Its key locations have been overrun by the militants, with government forces retreating to a military base on its fringes.

“Government headquarters, including the governor’s house, police command, and the National Directorate of Security compound, are captured by the Taliban,” Mohammad Noor Rahmani, a Sar-e Pul provincial council member, told Reuters.

Over the past few days, the Taliban has put the government troops under heavy pressure, apparently switching the focus of its offensive from rural areas to major cities. Two provincial capitals, Zaranj in the southwest and Sheberghan in the north, have already fallen into the hands of the militant group.

August 8, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , | Leave a comment

PHE Data Confirms That New Infections Peaked and Dropped in the Unvaccinated Before They Did in the Vaccinated

By Will Jones • The Daily Sceptic • August 8, 2021

Back in early July I noted that data from the ZOE Covid Symptom Study was showing that new infections in the unvaccinated were peaking and falling while those in the vaccinated were still surging.

This was not a phenomenon noted elsewhere and prompted questions about whether it showed that the vaccines were delaying infection, or whether it was primarily an age-based phenomenon. Unfortunately, before anyone was able to investigate further, within a couple of weeks ZOE had ‘updated‘ their methodology and in their new data the phenomenon had oddly disappeared.

This left questions as to whether it had been entirely an artefact of problems with their previous methodology or whether it had been a real phenomenon.

PHE data from the three most recent technical briefings (18, 19 and 20) allow us now to answer this question. Above (top of page) are the Delta case counts for the period July 6th to July 19th and then July 20th to August 2nd, broken down by vaccination status and age. (Actually, it’s not clear whether the initial date is July 6th or another date around then as briefing 18 appears to have a typo and says its data runs up to June 21st, even though briefing 17 also had data up to June 21st and the figures in briefing 18 are higher. However, for the purpose of this analysis it’s not important exactly what the start date is, and I have used July 6th as that is what it would be assuming briefing 18 has the equivalent date to the other briefings.)

The key lines to look at in the chart are the grey and yellow lines. They show that in the under-50s, Delta cases in the unvaccinated dramatically declined between early July and late July whereas those in the vaccinated (at least 21 days after the first dose) were stable. In the second half of the month there were actually more infections in the vaccinated of all ages than in the unvaccinated (the blue and orange lines).

This was the period when new infections nationwide peaked (on July 17th, by report date) and dropped quickly. This new analysis allows us to see that this fast drop was entirely in the unvaccinated under-50s (presumably the result of reaching herd immunity for the Delta variant). Infections in the vaccinated of all ages (and the unvaccinated over-50s) did not fall at the same time but remained stable. This helps explain why the drop ended around July 28th (by report date) and new infections have currently plateaued. What we are experiencing now is the ‘wave’ of infections in the vaccinated (along with the unvaccinated over 50s).

We can’t be sure that the explanation of the phenomenon is that the vaccines delayed infection. Another possibility is that the early surge was in the younger, less vaccinated portion of the under 50s (i.e., people under 30). What we really need is a finer breakdown by age. Unfortunately, despite all the data published during this crisis, very little of it is properly broken down by both vaccination status and age to allow us to do this kind of analysis.

Nonetheless, this confirms that ‘old ZOE’ was right to show infections in the unvaccinated falling during July while those in the vaccinated did not. The fact that ‘new ZOE’ no longer shows this phenomenon once again leads to questions about what changes were made and why, and whether the new methodology is really more reliable, or just more politically acceptable.

August 8, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | Leave a comment

Forbes: “Forget About Peak Oil – We Haven’t Even Reached Peak Coal Yet”

By Eric Worrall | Watts Up With That? | August 8, 2021

Mainstream media is waking up that despite billions invested in renewable energy, oil and coal use are surging:

Forget About Peak Oil – We Haven’t Even Reached Peak Coal Yet

David Blackmon, Senior Contributor Energy
Aug 2, 2021,09:18am EDT

Despite all the heavy dissemination of narratives and talking points about a “climate emergency” and the “energy transition” during 2021, the ongoing economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic proves that the world still heavily relies on fossil fuels to provide its constantly growing energy needs. Indeed, as the pushers of Peak Oil demand theory try in vain to revive their own always-wrong narrative, it now appears that the world has yet to even meet the peak of demand for the least environmentally friendly fuel of all, coal.

This is especially true in China, India and much of Asia, where thousands of coal-fired power plants have seen record usage levels in the face of a major heat wave this summer. … Read more

Just to add to the fun, talking about peak oil and peak coal as if they are different targets is fundamentally wrong.

As the NAZIs proved in WW2, when they lost access to good oil fields, you can run an economy on coal liquefaction technologies, well proven technologies for converting coal into oil.

The only holdup is liquefied coal is more expensive than conventional oil, it doesn’t become economical until oil prices exceed $100 ($145 / barrel according to one estimate I saw). Though China runs a significant volume of coal liquefaction plants, those plants are likely more for high value added chemical synthesis than fuel oil.

The threat of cheaper coal liquefaction technologies is likely the real reason OPEC tries to keep oil prices low. OPEC are terrified of “demand destruction”, the possibility that high oil prices will stimulate a switchover to EVs, or more investment in developing non-OPEC oil resources, but they are also concerned it will stimulate research into cutting the cost of coal liquefaction. A coal liquefaction research breakthrough could permanently cap OPEC’s conventional oil at an uncomfortably low price.

So the reality is, there is zero chance we shall see peak oil supply in our lifetime, or even our grandchildren’s lifetime, not only because there are vast reserves of oil, but because there are centuries worth of coal reserves just sitting in the ground waiting to be mined. We shall all have a plentiful supply of oil at an affordable price, for as long as we need it.

August 8, 2021 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Does a high fibre diet prevent disease?

bran flakes dietary fibre heart disease risk

By Sebastian Rushworth | August 8, 2021

All doctors (and probably most non-doctors) have heard of Burkitt’s lymphoma, a type of cancer found primarily in children living in malaria-endemic areas in Africa. Denis Burkitt was the first person to describe the disease, and also the first person to propose that there was an environmental cause (now known to be simultaneous infection by both malaria and Epstein-Barr virus).

Most doctors probably don’t know that Denis Burkitt is also almost single-handedly responsible for the now widespread belief that dietary fibre is an important part of a healthy diet. Interestingly, Burkitt developed his ideas about dietary fibre after corresponding with a less well known doctor called Thomas Cleave (who hasn’t been allowed to give his name to any diseases).

Cleave was interested in the connection between diet and disease, and had noticed how the transition from a traditional diet to a modern diet, rich in refined carbohydrates, was associated with a massive increase in a large number of diseases, including cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. He even wrote a book on the subject. Burkitt was introduced to Cleave in the late 1960’s by epidemiologist Richard Doll (himself famous for discovering that smoking causes lung cancer).

Burkitt was deeply affected by Cleave’s ideas, and in particular his conception that all the “diseases of civilization” had a single underlying cause, but he took the data and went off in a different direction with it. While Cleave believed that it was the refined carbohydrates in the modern diet that were causing harm, Burkitt came to believe instead that it was the absence of dietary fibre that was responsible. Since refined carbohydrates are by definition low in dietary fibre, the two things track together perfectly, and it becomes almost impossible to say from observational data which is the causative factor and which is the confounder.

There was a big fly in the ointment of Burkitt’s hypothesis from the start, however, and that was the fact that the Maasai tribespeople in Kenya and Tanzania, who lived on a diet consisting almost entirely of meat, milk, and blood, showed none of the diseases of modern civilization, even though they had virtually no fibre in their diet. Burkitt, who spent much of his career in Africa, was well aware of this fact, but seemingly chose to ignore it because it didn’t fit his hypothesis.

The world of nutrition was at this time (the late 1970’s) focusing increasingly on dietary fat as the cause of modern diseases (based on atrociously low quality evidence and forceful lobbying by diet-heart hypothesis originator Ancel Keys), and Cleave’s hypothesis was inconvenient, because telling people to cut down on both fats and carbohydrates wouldn’t work – people had to eat something. Burkitt’s fibre hypothesis could however be made to fit together with the diet-heart hypothesis without too much trouble. The two were thus wedded and came to dominate dietary advice for the next couple of decades.

That is how breakfast cereals came to be considered a health food, and why we’ve all been told to increase our intake of dietary fibre. Anyway, it’s now a couple of decades later. One would think that by now there would be plenty of data from actual randomized trials to tell us whether we should be eating more dietary fibre or not. Unfortunately we’re still to a large extent stuck with crappy and confounder-riddled observational studies that cannot separate the presence of refined carbohydrates from the absence of dietary fibre, and that therefore cannot actually say anything about what causes what.

The Cochrane Collaboration tried to do a systematic review and meta-analysis in 2016 to look at the state of the evidence when it comes to the ability of dietary fibre to prevent cardiovascular disease. They found 23 randomized controlled trials with a total of only 1,513 participants. Most of the studies ran for only 12 weeks (the minimum length of time the reviewers had set for inclusion in the review, since short term effects are meaningless from a public health standpoint), and the longest ran for only six months. That’s why I say they tried – there simply isn’t enough data to draw any firm conclusions about what effect dietary fibre has on cardiovascular disease risk. 1,513 people followed for a few months provides far too little data to be able to say anything certain.

With that being the case, the reviewers decided to look at surrogate markers for cardiovascular risk instead of looking at hard outcomes like heart attacks and deaths. In other words, they looked at blood lipids and blood pressure. They included trials of both dietary interventions (i.e. that had people eat more food rich in dietary fibre) and trials of fibre containing supplements. I prefer the fibre supplement trials, since the dietary intervention trials have the same confounding issue that the observational studies have – i.e. that an increase in intake of foods rich in dietary fibre virtually always also means a decrease in intake of foods rich in refined carbohydrates. The supplement trials are also at lower risk of bias, since they can be placebo-controlled and thereby blinded. But I’ll report what the diet modification studies showed too, for the sake of completeness. In total, there were fifteen fibre supplement trials and eight diet modification trials.

Let’s get to the results. The fibre supplements were associated with a marginal 0.04 mmol/L reduction in LDL (“bad cholesterol” – yes I know that description is dumb and technically incorrect) that was just about statistically significant. The effect was similar (0.03 mmol/L) in the diet modification trials. For an average person with an LDL of 4 mmol/L this would represent a reduction of just 1%, in other words nowhere near enough to be expected to have any noticeable impact on cardiovascular disease risk.

And LDL is anyway a poor predictor of risk of cardiovascular disease. A much better predictor is triglycerides. The fibre supplements were associated with a 0,03 mmol/L reduction in triglycerides (not statistically significant), while diet modification was associated with a 0,02 mmol/L increase in triglycerides (also not statistically significant). Considering that the average person has a triglyceride level of around 2 mmol/L, this amounts to no noticeable effect on triglycerides whatsoever (and when the supplement and diet modification trials were meta-analyzed together, the difference between high-fibre and low-fibre was exactly zero mmol/L).

When analyzing blood lipids, the final piece of the puzzle is HDL (“good cholesterol”). While you want LDL and triglycerides to be low, you want HDL to be high. Unfortunately, fibre was associated with a reduction in HDL – 0,04 mmol/L in the supplement trials and 0,03 mmol/L in the diet modification trials. Fortunately, that difference was again so small as to be utterly inconsequential.

Ok, so the overall picture is that fibre doesn’t meaningfully impact blood lipids one way or the other. What about blood pressure?

Both the supplement studies and the diet modification studies reported a 2 mmHg reduction in systolic blod pressure and a 2 mmHg reduction in diastolic blood pressure. Considering that the average person has a systolic blood pressure of around 130 and a diastolic blood pressure of 80, this again amounts to such a marginal difference that it’s not going to have any noticeable impact whatsoever on an individual’s risk of cardiovascular disease (in other words, the story when it comes to fibre is the same as the story when it comes to salt – the impact of diet change is far too small to have any noticeable impact on an individual’s heart disease risk).

So the evidence to support the notion that fibre is “heart healthy” is weak. Kellogg’s should definitely stop marketing bran flakes as a “heart healthy” food.

Fifty years ago, when Denis Burkitt started researching fibre and it’s possible health benefits, the first thing he focused on was it’s potential to prevent colon cancer. The notion that fibre might have a role in preventing colon cancer makes a lot more intuitive sense than the notion that it might prevent heart disease, for the simple reason that fibre doesn’t move from the intestine into the body proper (technically the contents of the intestine are considered to be outside the body), but fibre does have various effects on the intestine, not least of which is the fact that it interacts with the bacteria that reside in the colon.

Colon cancer is thus a good test case for the many claims made about dietary fibre’s health benefits. The Cochrane Collaboration carried out a systematic review in 2017 that looked at the ability of dietary fibre to prevent colon cancer. The review included randomized trials of people who had had polyps removed and that then followed them over time to see if they developed new polyps and/or colon cancer.

Colon cancer usually progresses in an orderly fashion, beginning as a polyp that over time (if you’re unlucky) progresses to full blown cancer, so studies that want to determine risk of colon cancer progression can usually get away with looking at whether new polyps develop rather than having to wait and see whether the participants develop cancer (which saves time and allows for shorter, smaller studies).

Five trials were identified, with a total of 4,798 participants. The average age of the participants was around 60 years at the start of the studies, and they were followed for two to four years. As with the heart disease studies, there was quite a bit of variation in terms of the intervention used, with four trials providing dietary supplements while one attempted diet modification. The trials were for the most part able to at least double people’s fibre intake.

Ok, let’s take a look at the results.

Over the course of follow-up, participants in the high fibre group were 4% more likely to develop at least one new polyp in their colon than participants in the control group, although the difference wasn’t statistically significant. Hmm. Odd. We’d have expected at least some signal of benefit. The trend definitely shouldn’t be towards harm.

But polyps are really just a surrogate marker, like blood pressure is when it comes to heart disease. What we really want to know is whether the high fibre diet protects against colon cancer. Two of the studies were big enough to provide data on this more meaningful outcome.

In these two studies, participants in the high fibre group were 170% more likely to develop colon cancer than participants in the control group. Yes, more. Not less. That difference was statistically significant. So… that’s strange. Admittedly, this result is based on a few thousand participants followed for a few years. It could be wrong. But what it means is that the highest quality evidence currently available suggests that a high fibre diet might actually increase your risk of colon cancer, not decrease it.

How do we square this finding with the observational data that shows a decrease in colon cancer risk with a high fibre diet? As mentioned, the observational data is heavily affected by confounding variables, not least of which is the fact that a high fibre diet usually means a diet low in refined carbohydrates. These results support the notion that Burkitt was wrong and Cleave was right – that the harms associated with a diet rich in refined carbohydrates are due to the presence of refined carbohydrates, not due to the absence of fibre.

So, what can we conclude from all this? Does fibre prevent the so-called “diseases of civilization”?

Well, maybe. That is certainly the impression you would get if you look at the observational data, which find a correlation between a low fibre diet and pretty much any chronic disease you care to look at. The randomized trials that have been done have however for the most part failed to show evidence of a benefit of increasing intake of dietary fibre.

August 8, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

The Web Archives browser extension is an easy way to archive and check for archived versions of a page

Increasingly needed in today’s censorship-driven world

By Rick Findlay | Reclaim The Net | August 8, 2021

There are many times when you may want to view archived or cached versions of webpages that are temporarily inaccessible or have been deleted or censored.

And while there are lots of different archiving services out there, using the Web Archives browser extension allows you to quickly check if there’s an archived version of the URL you’re on across a variety of the main archives.

It also lets you quickly archive pages that you want to keep a reference of or to quickly archive something you think is soon to be deleted.

Webpages and even entire websites, especially in this era of “cancel culture” and censorship, come and go, or their content gets changed. Other times, the content of a page is temporarily unavailable, for reasons like server issues.

Thanks to caching and archiving services such as Wayback Machine and Archive.is, web pages can be preserved, meaning you can still view the content of a since-deleted webpage.

Web Archives, is a functional open-source extension that brings together the multiple archiving and caching services.

After installing the extension, which is available on Edge, Chrome, Firefox, and all other Chromium-based and Firefox-based browsers, you can view previous archived and cached versions of a webpage by activating the extension on the browser’s toolbar.

The extension will display a list of services that have archived or cached the page you are looking for.

There’s also an option to search for the page on all services simultaneously.

August 8, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance | Leave a comment

American Military Cities in Germany

Tales of the American Empire | August 5, 2021

Soon after World War II ended, the US military began building massive military bases in Europe and shipped families to Europe to accompany servicemen. These bases grew into American cities that are great fun, but very costly and reduce the readiness of units. Should war occur in Europe, military units there will remain dysfunctional for weeks until their families are safely back in the United States. This assumes children are not killed or maimed by missile or commando attacks since these bases would be the main enemy target during a war. Generals know this, but European tours are too much fun and those who profit from this racket have political clout to derail efforts at reform.

______________________________________

“Cut Army Fat in Europe”; Carlton Meyer; G2mil; 2013; https://www.g2mil.com/wiesbaden.htm

“Closing Spangdahelm”; Carlton Meyer; G2mil; 2012; https://www.g2mil.com/spangdahlem.htm

DODEA Europe website; details on the massive American school complex in Europe. https://www.dodea.edu/Europe/index.cfm

US Army Corps of Engineers Europe website; details on construction projects in Europe; https://www.youtube.com/user/usaceEur…

“Germany spent far less than other major allies on cost-sharing for US bases last year”; John Vandiver; Stars and Stripes; March 12, 2021; https://www.stripes.com/news/europe/g…

“Milley is right – the U.S. should reevaluate its military commitments”; Dan DePetris; Defense News; December 10, 2020; https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/2…

“US Army building up force in Europe with two new units”; Jen Judson; Defense News; April 13, 2021; https://www.defensenews.com/land/2021…

August 7, 2021 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Alarming PHE data shows the fatality rate in vaccinated under-50s is 57% greater than in the unvaccinated

By Will Jones | The Daily Sceptic | August 8, 2021

Yesterday I wrote about the new data from Public Health England that allows us to make a (rough) calculation of vaccine efficacy during the Delta surge. Using data from technical briefings 17 and 20 I calculated that vaccine efficacy against infection with the Delta variant in the over-50s was a disappointing 17%. Vaccine efficacy against mortality was a better (if lower than expected) 77%.

The Daily Expose also published a piece looking at the new PHE data and argued that it showed vaccination was actually increasing the risk of hospitalisation and death. Their analysis did not break the results down by age, however, and so did not take into account that most of the infections are in the young, who are less vaccinated, and most of the deaths are in the old, who are much more vaccinated. That’s why my analysis focused on the over-50s, and when you do that you find the vaccines reduced mortality during the Delta surge in that age group by around 77%.

The Daily Expose article helpfully drew attention to the fact that in a recently published document, the Government advisers on SAGE themselves appear to admit that the vaccines do not prevent infection and transmission. In paragraph eight, they write:

While we feel that current vaccines are excellent for reducing the risk of hospital admission and disease, we propose that research be focused on vaccines that also induce high and durable levels of mucosal immunity in order to reduce infection of and transmission from vaccinated individuals. This could also reduce the possibility of variant selection in vaccinated individuals.

This being the case, why is SAGE not advising the Government to cease all aspects of the vaccination programme based on the idea of reducing transmission and protecting others (vaccine passports, the coercion of young people, vaccination of children and so on) as its members clearly don’t believe that these things are backed up by sound scientific evidence?

The Daily Expose article also highlights that there is another way of using the data in the PHE report to calculate the vaccine effectiveness against death. This is by calculating the case fatality rates (CFRs) in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups respectively and taking the ratio.

Doing this for the over-50s, between June 22nd and August 2nd there were 339 deaths from 17,926 cases in the double vaccinated, giving a CFR of 1.9%, and 167 deaths from 2,464 cases in the unvaccinated, giving a CFR of 6.8%. One minus the ratio of these gives a vaccine effectiveness against death of 72% (1-(1.9%/6.8%)). Unlike the figure I calculated yesterday using population vaccination coverage, this is the vaccine effectiveness against death once infected, so doesn’t include any protection the vaccines provide against infection in the first place, meaning it is not surprising that it is lower. That it is not much lower is a further indication that the vaccines do little to prevent infection.

Because with this method we don’t need to worry about vaccination coverage in the population, we don’t need to restrict ourselves to the period June 22nd to August 2nd, which I selected because it was when the vaccination programme in the over-50s was basically complete. This means we can use all the Delta cases up to August 2nd as found in technical briefing 20. Again, for the over-50s, up to August 2nd there were 389 deaths from 21,472 cases in the double vaccinated, giving a CFR of 1.8%, and 205 deaths from 3,440 cases, giving a CFR of 6%. One minus the ratio of these gives a vaccine effectiveness against death (once infected) of 70%. So vaccine effectiveness against death in the over-50s rose slightly during the recent surge.

We can also use this method for the under-50s. Up to August 2nd there were 13 deaths from 25,536 cases in the double vaccinated, giving a CFR of 0.05%, and 48 deaths from 147,612 cases in the unvaccinated, giving a CFR of 0.03%. Strikingly, the CFR in the vaccinated here is higher than in the unvaccinated. In fact, it is 57% higher, meaning the vaccine effectiveness is negative 57%, i.e., in the under-50s the vaccine increases the risk of death once infected by 57%. This is in line with the Daily Expose‘s report, albeit the effect is found only in the younger population.

One caveat is that this doesn’t allow for any protection the vaccine might offer against infection, which may be higher in the under-50s (I haven’t attempted to calculate this as the vaccine coverage in that age group is constantly rising meaning I can’t pin down a figure). But even so, the fact that the case fatality rate among the vaccinated under-50s is 57% higher than among the unvaccinated under-50s is not just disappointing, it is alarming.

It’s worth bearing in mind that we are dealing with very small numbers here. There were only 61 deaths in these two groups (double vaccinated and unvaccinated under-50s) and only 13 of them were in the double vaccinated. One possible explanation is that these 13 deaths are highly vulnerable people who were vaccinated to try to protect them, while the CFR in the unvaccinated was driven down by the high infection rate among socially active young people. A more reassuring statistic, using data from the same report, is that the vaccine effectiveness against A&E attendance (once infected) among under-50s is 35%, and against an overnight hospital stay is 43%. These are not exactly stunning results, but do at least indicate a positive effect. Interestingly, the same statistics for the over-50s are a vaccine effectiveness against A&E attendance once infected of 71% and against an overnight hospital stay of 73%, indicating again an unexpectedly higher efficacy in the older population. Is this an artefact of higher risk younger people being vaccinated first?

Since, then, the disturbing statistic arises from just 13 deaths, perhaps the most sensible course of action would be for PHE to investigate these 13 deaths and publish a report assessing what role if any the vaccine may have played in them. More generally, given that the number of Covid deaths in vaccinated under-50s is small, a report filling out details on each would be illuminating. It would help to address what is otherwise a worrying sign that the vaccines may be counterproductive for younger people.

August 7, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

San Francisco Sheriffs Will Quit or Retire if Forced to Be Vaccinated, Police Union Says

By Alexandra Kashirina – Sputnik – 07.08.2021

Almost half of the US population is fully inoculated against COVID-19, but vaccination rates have slowed due to widespread scepticism. However, the US federal government has left it up to state and local institutions, companies and other establishments to decide whether or not to make the shots compulsory.

The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (SFSO) has warned that the city’s vaccination mandate may force law enforcement agents to retire amid an insufficient number of deputy sheriffs and other first responders, according to an official statement posted on Facebook on Friday.

“The problem we are faced with now is the strict San Francisco Mandate, which is: vaccinate or be terminated. If deputy sheriffs are forced to vaccinate, a percentage of them will retire early or seek employment elsewhere,” the organisation says.

The union stressed that a significant number of employees, 160 out 700, have already been vaccinated, while the rest of the deputy sheriffs “prefer to mask and test weekly instead of being vaccinated due to religious and other beliefs”.

“Currently, the staffing at the SFSO is at the lowest it has ever been due to the past 9-month applicant testing restriction placed on the Sheriff’s Office by the Mayor,” the post continues. “San Francisco cannot afford to lose any more deputy sheriffs or any first responders. If they retire early or quit this will affect public safety even more.”

SFSO asked city authorities to allow the personnel to comply with California’s rules, that provide the option of getting weekly tests as an alternative to inoculation. Last month San Francisco authorities imposed mandatory inoculation for all of the city’s public employees: around 35,000 people.

Amid the latest surge of COVID-19 delta variant in many countries, the US President Joe Biden, speaking last week on further measures against the coronavirus pandemic, didn’t rule out the possibility of compulsory vaccination nationwide, stressing that local authorities and employers have already the authority to require vaccination certificates.

Many institutions, including public bodies and some of the biggest companies such as Facebook, Google and Netflix, have introduced compulsory vaccination. The US military is also expected to implement mandatory inoculation, according to recent reports.

To date, nearly 194 million people (58 percent of the population) in the US have been vaccinated; almost 166 million have received two vaccine doses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

August 7, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

“It’s just…” – Why I Won’t Submit

By Addison Reeves | OffGuardian | August 7, 2021

It’s just two weeks. It’s just staying three feet apart. It’s just staying six feet apart. It’s just not going outside. It’s just not giving handshakes. It’s just working from home. It is just non-essential businesses that are closed.

It’s just bars. It’s just restaurants. It’s just theaters. It’s just concerts. It’s just dancing. It’s just intramural sports. It’s just choir.

It’s just non-essential medical services that you have to give up. It is just non-essential items that you are not allowed to buy. It’s just not being able to exercise. It’s just gyms. It is just the closure of your business for a while. It is just not making money for a while. It is just not being able to pay your bills for a little while.

It’s just a minor inconvenience. It’s just not being allowed to carpool. It’s just not socializing for a while. It’s just a mask. It’s just not traveling for a while. It’s just not hugging people for a while. It’s just missionary sex that is risky.

It is just not seeing your family and friends for a while. It’s just not visiting your grandparents temporarily. It’s just your grandparents not having visitors for their safety. It’s just one birthday you have to sacrifice. It’s just one Thanksgiving alone. It’s just one Christmas without your family. It’s just two birthdays you had to sacrifice. It is just not celebrating any milestones for a year and a half.

It’s just temporary. It’s just a safety measure. It is just your ability to pay cash. It is just contact tracing. It is just a health screening. It is just a temperature check. It is just a scan of your face. It’s just a minor loss of privacy.

It is just one semester. It is just two semesters. It is just one year out of your child’s life. It is just one more semester. It is just a high school graduation.

It’s just the birth of your grandchild that you missed. It is just not being able to be there for your relatives when they are ill or dying. It is just not having a funeral. It is just in person that you cannot grieve with your loved ones. It is just not getting to attend religious service. It is just not getting to practice some parts of your religion.

It is just misinformation that is being censored. It is just conservatives that are being censored. It is just some of the science that is being censored. It is just the people who have the opposing opinions that are banned online. It is just the opposition that the White House is targeting for censorship. It is just bad opinions that are being censored.

It’s just the economy. It is just small business owners who are suffering financially. It is just poor people who are suffering financially. It is just people of color who are suffering financially. It is just financial suffering. It is just a few small businesses that had to close permanently. It is just a few big businesses that closed.

It is just not going farther than a few kilometers from your house. It is just a curfew. It is just a permission slip. It is just being alone for two weeks. It is just being socially isolated for one year.

It is just one vaccine. It is just one set of booster shots. It is just regular booster shots every six months. It is just another two weeks. It is just one more lock-down. It is just once a week—twice tops—that you will have to prove that you are fit to participate in society. It is just the unvaccinated that will be segregated from society. It is just a medical test.

Pretty simple, no?

Just fucking do it.

But when you add up all the “justs,” it amounts to our entire lives.

For over a year and a half and counting, we have been robbed of the ability to live our lives fully, to make meaningful choices for ourselves, and to express our values the way we see fit.

It is “just” the inability to express our humanity and the total negation of our very selves. All of these measures have served as a prohibition of expressing outwardly one’s valid and complex internal reality. This kind of suppression of self does violence to one’s very soul.

All of these supposedly little and supposedly short-lived “justs” have transformed us into totalitarian states from which there appears to be no endpoint.

In New York City, California, Australia, etc., the people have permitted government such control over our daily lives that we have to ask it for permission to control our bodies, to move freely, to practice religion, to educate our children ourselves, to protest, etc.

Soon Biden, Trudeau, and other world leaders are going to clamp down on our ability to express ourselves and to associate with each other online so that we can no longer question, object to, or organize against government action. It is the destruction of democracy.

It astounds me that my Progressive friends — the same ones who claim to support “social justice” — are welcoming a fascist society in which government crushes any opposition and individuals cannot make choices about their own lives.

I will not comply because I do not want to live in the society that is being created by extraordinary submissiveness to government. I do not want to be complicit in this era’s atrocities.

What is the point of living if one merely exists to obey the elite to one’s own detriment? Is it even living if one lacks the agency to direct one’s life? I’ve already submitted in contradiction of my values to a shameful extent. One might say, “Well, what’s one more compromise,” but it won’t be just one more compromise. It will be just the next cut in a slow death by a thousand cuts.

Submitting only validates tyrannical displays of power and ensures that there will be more such displays in the future.

And what does one get for compromising? Merely your continued membership in a society that will only have you if you immolate yourself and become nothing more than a reflection of the desires of the ruling class.

If you cannot be truly yourself in a society, is that society worth clinging to? I think not. As much as leaving the stability of my comfort zone terrifies me, staying in it means continuing to silence and shrink myself for a disingenuous feeling of acceptance. In that way, it is more of a discomfort zone.

Each time I expressed my fears about the future direction of society, my friends said “it won’t happen.” Each time it did happen, they shrugged their shoulders and reminded me that compliance was an option.

At this point, if the government were to cart me away to an internment camp (which is not a completely far-fetched notion and which has happened in the past) for being a dangerous dissident I am certain that my friends and family would watch it happen and say it was my fault for not complying.

They are no longer capable of recognizing the humanity of the opposition or of questioning government.

I will not submit because I don’t want to live in a world in which my supposed allies would happily see me persecuted by the government.

I will not comply because the political climate has become so censorial, authoritarian, and generally toxic that my viewpoints will never be represented in the political process here. Without representation, my values and beliefs will be violated again and again by a polity that sees any deviation from itself as invalid. Thus, my compliance will provide zero assurance of any better treatment in the future.

I will not bend because I am not a conformist.

I will not give in because I do not want to reward government manipulation and coercion.

I will not surrender because I could die at any moment, and I do not want my final memories to be ones of craven submission to tyranny and the resultant misery and self-loathing.

I will not comply because it is not the government’s first intrusion on my body, mind, and spirit; and if we comply, it will definitely not be the last. All I will accomplish by my compliance is validating the government’s claim on my body and life.

I am not submitting because this is war, and I am not handing the enemy its victories.

I will not comply because the reward for compliance will still be being treated as a second class-citizen by society.

I won’t acquiesce because I am a conscientious objector.

I will not cede because the measures are unnecessary and the only practical effect will be to increase government power.

I don’t comply because I do not want to be a mere slave in the future version of the world they are creating, doing only what I am told to do and having to beg for access to the necessities of life that I am entitled to as a living being on this earth.

I will not yield because their religion is not my religion, and I refuse to worship a false idol.

I will not capitulate because I do not want to betray my ancestors and predecessors who fought for me to be free.

I will not surrender because freedom is more important than convenience and ease.

I will not comply because if I did I would be filled with rage against society, resentment towards my friends and family, and self-loathing that would eat me alive. I would become bitter and closed-hearted, and I don’t want that for myself.

All of this is why I won’t “just fucking do it.”.

Addison Reeves is a lawyer, political scientist, philosopher, and civil rights and civil liberties advocate based in New York. Addison critiques modern culture from a radical, leftist perspective at ModernHeretic.com or you can follow him on Telegram 

August 7, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

The Panic Pandemic: How Media Fearmongering Led to ‘Unprecedented’ Censorship of Scientific Research

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | The Defender | August 5, 2021

Now that we’re more than a year into the pandemic, it’s crystal clear that the panic that ensued was unnecessary and the draconian measures put into place for public health were unwarranted and harmful.

John Tierney, a former reporter for The New York Times, looked back over the pandemic, providing a timeline of the media-induced viral panic that led to censorship and suppression of scientific research on an unprecedented scale.

In his article for City Journal, where he is a contributing editor, he explained that the “moral panic that swept the nation’s guiding institutions” during the pandemic was far more catastrophic than the viral pandemic itself.

Media-induced panic set off in March 2020

The panic was started by journalists beginning in March 2020, when the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team released “Report 9” on the impact of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPSs) to reduce deaths and health care demand from COVID-19.

The report’s computer model projected that intensive care units in the U.S. would be overrun, with 30 COVID-19 patients for every available bed, and 2.2 million dead by summer. They concluded that “epidemic suppression is the only viable strategy at the current time,” which led to lockdowns, business and school closures and population-wide social distancing. But as Tierney noted:

“What had originally been a limited lockdown — ‘15 days to slow the spread’ — became long-term policy across much of the United States and the world.

“A few scientists and public-health experts objected, noting that an extended lockdown was a novel strategy of unknown effectiveness that had been rejected in previous plans for a pandemic. It was a dangerous experiment being conducted without knowing the answer to the most basic question: Just how lethal is this virus?”

John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford, was an early critic of the response, who argued that long-term lockdowns could cause more harm than good. Ioannidis came under intense fire after he and colleagues revealed that the COVID-19 fatality rate for those under the age of 45 is “almost zero,” and between the ages of 45 and 70, it’s somewhere between 0.05% and 0.3%.

In Santa Clara County, in particular, he and colleagues estimated that in late March 2020, the local COVID infection fatality rate was just 0.17%. “But merely by reporting data that didn’t fit the official panic narrative, they became targets,” Tierney explained. “… Mainstream journalists piled on with hit pieces quoting critics and accusing the researchers of endangering lives by questioning lockdowns.”

Journals refused to publish solid, anti-narrative research

The discrediting and censorship of researchers who spoke out against the official narrative — even if they included supportive data — became a common and alarming theme over the last year, one that extended to virtually every aspect of pandemic-related policy, including masks.

The “Danmask-19 Trial,” published Nov. 18, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine, found that among mask wearers 1.8% (42 participants) ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% (53) among controls. When they removed the people who reported not adhering to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8% (40 people), which suggests adherence makes no significant difference.

Initially, numerous research journals refused to publish the results, which called widespread mask mandates into question. Tierney said:

“When Thomas Benfield, one of the researchers in Denmark conducting the first large randomized controlled trial of mask efficacy against COVID, was asked why they were taking so long to publish the much-anticipated findings, he promised them as ‘as soon as a journal is brave enough to accept the paper.’

“After being rejected by The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA, the study finally appeared in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the reason for the editors’ reluctance became clear: the study showed that a mask did not protect the wearer, which contradicted claims by the Centers for Disease Control and other health authorities.”

A similar experience was had by Dr. Stefan Baral, a Johns Hopkins epidemiologist with 350 publications, who wanted to publish a critique of lockdowns. It became the “first time in my career that I could not get a piece placed anywhere,” he told Tierney.

Harvard epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff also wrote a paper against lockdowns and couldn’t get it published, noting that most other scientists he spoke to were also against them but were afraid to speak up.

Kulldorff and colleagues soon banded together to write the Great Barrington Declaration, which calls for “focused protection” of the elderly and those in nursing homes and hospitals, while allowing businesses and schools to remain open. Soon after, they too were attacked:

“They managed to attract attention but not the kind they hoped for. Though tens of thousands of other scientists and doctors went on to sign the declaration, the press caricatured it as a deadly ‘let it rip’ strategy and an ‘ethical nightmare’ from ‘COVID deniers’ and ‘agents of misinformation.’”

Physicians targeted, labeled heretics

Dr. Scott Atlas of Stanford’s Hoover Institution was another common target, as he also suggested that protections should be focused on nursing homes and lockdowns would take more lives than COVID-19. According to Tierney:

“When he joined the White House coronavirus task force, Bill Gates derided him as ‘this Stanford guy with no background’ promoting ‘crackpot theories.’ Nearly 100 members of Stanford’s faculty signed a letter denouncing his ‘falsehoods and misrepresentations of science,’ and an editorial in the Stanford Daily urged the university to sever its ties to Hoover.

“The Stanford faculty senate overwhelmingly voted to condemn Atlas’s actions as ‘anathema to our community, our values and our belief that we should use knowledge for good.’”

Similarly, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which regulates the practice of medicine in Ontario, issued a statement in May prohibiting physicians from making comments or providing advice that goes against the official narrative.

Actor Clifton Duncan shared the Orwellian message on Twitter, urging his followers to “Read this. Now. And then share it as much as you can.”

Because, equally as disturbing as the notion of publicly dictating to physicians what they’re allowed to say, is the fact that, as Duncan said, the statement has a glaring omission, “The health and well-being of the patient.”

Florida’s mortality rate from COVID lower than average

Certain states have stood out for their refusal to buy into the draconian public health measures that were adopted throughout much of the U.S. Florida is chief among them. After a spring 2020 lockdown, Florida business, schools and restaurants reopened, while mask mandates were rejected.

“If Florida had simply done no worse than the rest of the country during the pandemic, that would have been enough to discredit the lockdown strategy,” Tierney said, noting that the state acted as the control group in a natural experiment. The results speak for themselves:

“Florida’s mortality rate from COVID is lower than the national average among those over 65 and also among younger people, so that the state’s age-adjusted COVID mortality rate is lower than that of all but ten other states. And by the most important measure, the overall rate of ‘excess mortality’ (the number of deaths above normal), Florida has also done better than the national average.

“Its rate of excess mortality is significantly lower than that of the most restrictive state, California, particularly among younger adults, many of whom died not from COVID but from causes related to the lockdowns: cancer screenings and treatments were delayed, and there were sharp increases in deaths from drug overdoses and from heart attacks not treated promptly.”

The crisis crisis

It defies reason how so many government, academic and policy leaders could support rampant censorship and suppress scientific debate for so long, all while propagating panic. One of Tierney’s explanations is what he calls “the crisis crisis,” or the “incessant state of alarm fomented by journalists and politicians”:

“It’s a longstanding problem — humanity was supposedly doomed in the last century by the ‘population crisis’ and the ‘energy crisis’ — that has dramatically worsened with the cable and digital competition for ratings, clicks and retweets.

“To keep audiences frightened around the clock, journalists seek out Cassandras with their own incentives for fearmongering: politicians, bureaucrats, activists, academics and assorted experts who gain publicity, prestige, funding and power during a crisis.

“Unlike many proclaimed crises, an epidemic is a genuine threat, but the crisis industry can’t resist exaggerating the danger, and doomsaying is rarely penalized. Journalists kept highlighting the most alarming warnings, presented without context. They needed to keep their audience scared, and they succeeded.”

The politicization of research is another major issue that contributes to groupthink and the suppression of scientific debate in order to support one agenda. Meanwhile, while the media advertised that we’re all in this pandemic together, some were clearly more affected than others — namely the poor and less educated, who lost jobs while professionals were mostly able to keep working from the “safety” of their homes.

Children from disadvantaged families also suffered the most from year-long school closures. “The brunt was borne by the most vulnerable in America and the poorest countries of the world,” Tierney wrote, while many of the elite got richer. The reality is, lockdowns have caused a great deal of harm, from delays in medical treatment and disrupted education to joblessness and drug overdoses, and for little, if any, benefit.

Data compiled by Pandemics ~ Data & Analytics (PANDA) also found no relationship between lockdowns and COVID-19 deaths per million people. The disease followed a trajectory of linear decline regardless of whether or not lockdowns were imposed. Yet, this is the type of information that has been censored from the beginning. As Tierney put it:

“This experience should be a lesson in what not to do, and whom not to trust. Do not assume that the media’s version of a crisis resembles reality. Do not count on mainstream journalists and their favorite doomsayers to put risks in perspective. Do not expect those who follow ‘the science’ to know what they’re talking about.”

August 7, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »