Blame Doctors And Hospitals, Not The Virus, For COVID Deaths
By Joel S. Hirschhorn | Principia Scientific | September 28, 2021
Very, very few physicians are courageous enough to stand up against the vaccine-but-not-early treatment with generics tyranny pushing mass COVID vaccination.
Few will prescribe ivermectin. Few acknowledge the many vaccine risks that for most people outweigh the benefits.
Few accept the science that natural immunity is better than vaccine immunity and people with it should not get the jab.
When Americans see the data on COVID deaths of over 600,000 who or what should they blame? The truth is this: Better than blaming the virus they should blame hospitals and the vast majority of physicians. Why?
Because the medical establishment has never had the courage to stand up to the medical tyranny engineered by Fauci and implemented by the CDC and FDA.
People still are dying from COVID because their physicians refuse to genuinely follow the science and prescribe cheap, safe and proven generics like ivermectin.
Of course, there have always been a minority of doctors who have since March 2020 been curing their patients of COVID by using a variety of protocols that hospitals and their doctors refuse to use.
Why are so many nurses and physicians refusing to be vaccinated? Because they have seen on a daily basis large numbers of patients suffering and dying not from the virus but from the COVID vaccines.
Now one of the most respected physicians and medical researchers, Dr. Robert Malone, has spearheaded a movement to combat medical tyranny by organizing physicians from all over the world and creating just days ago a Physicians Declaration. Here are some key highlights from this historic action.
— There is an unprecedented assault on our ability to care for our patients.
— Public policy [think Fauci] has chosen to ignore fundamental concepts of science, health and wellness, instead embracing a “one size fits all” treatment strategy [think COVID vaccines] that results in too much illness and death when the individualized, personalized approach to health care is safe and equally or more effective.
–Thousands of physicians are being denied the right to provide treatment to their patients [think ivermectin], as a result of barriers put up by pharmacies, hospitals, and public health agencies, rendering the vast majority of healthcare providers helpless to protect their patients in the face of disease. Physicians are now advising their patients to simply go home (allowing the virus to incubate) and return when their disease worsens, resulting in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary patient deaths, due to failure-to-treat [other than using vaccines].
— Physicians must defend their right to prescribe treatment, observing the tenet FIRST, DO NO HARM. Physicians shall not be restricted from prescribing safe and effective treatments [other than vaccines]. These restrictions continue to cause unnecessary sickness and death. The rights of patients, after being fully informed about the risks and benefits of each option [especially vaccines], must be restored to receive those treatments [such as ivermectin].
— We invite patients, who believe in the importance of the physician-patient relationship and the ability to be active participants in their care, to demand access to science-based medical care.
That last point is where you the reader must join this revolt and demand from your physicians and hospitals your right to get access to generic medicines like ivermectin. Print the Declaration and give it to your doctor.
If this Declaration simply remains words but not profound changes in the practice of medicine in this pandemic, then all hope for saving lives will be lost.
We are rapidly approaching the point where more people will die from COVID vaccines than the virus.
Fauci and his allies will not easily admit their many evil wrong actions. If you want to examine extensive medical science details on the emerging Vaccine Dystopia, then read this truth-telling article.
Most Americans don’t trust Biden and US government on Covid-19 information – poll
RT | September 28, 2021
The Axios/Ipsos poll, released Tuesday, shows 53% of Americans have not very much trust or no trust at all in the president to provide accurate information on the coronavirus.
Biden has retained the trust of a minority, with 45% saying they either trust the Democrat a great deal or a fair amount.
The survey was taken among more than 1,100 adults and has a margin of error of 3.2% points.
The president has continued pushing vaccines onto the American public, though some recent efforts have faced scrutiny, including his support of a third booster shot ahead of any Food & Drug Administration (FDA) decision and a vaccine mandate for employers with staff totaling over 100.
The public’s trust in Biden has slipped a fair amount since January, according to the survey data, as 58% of respondents questioned then said they supported the president on the pandemic, not long after his inauguration.
As is typical for Biden, his support is almost entirely among Democrats and Independents. Broken down by party lines, only 11% of Republicans trust Biden, while 42% of Independents and 81% of Democrats trust him.
This lack of trust extends beyond Biden and to the entire federal government, with only 49% saying they trust the government to provide accurate information on Covid-19. That number has continually been slipping and sat at 54% in data published two weeks ago.
The polling found a rise in trust among health officials. Over 60% said they trust the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and ‘national public health officials’ to provide accurate coronavirus information to the public. Those numbers, however, have also slipped from previous polling.
Survey data also found a growing majority seeing the coronavirus as a major health risk. Less than 15% said gatherings with friends and family or dining in a restaurant pose a large health risk, which is a decrease from two weeks ago. Only 27% think that air travel poses a risk because of Covid-19, which is also a drop from 35% since the last poll.
Iran And Venezuela Strike Oil Swap Deal
By Irina Slav | Oilprice.com | September 27, 2021
Iran and Venezuela have struck a deal to swap heavy Venezuelan crude for Iranian condensate, Reuters has reported, citing unnamed sources familiar with the deal.
According to these sources, the swaps are set to begin this week and last for six months, although they could be extended. The imports of Iranian superlight crude will help Venezuela revive its falling oil exports amid U.S. sanctions that, among other problems, have cut off the country’s access to the light oil that is used to blend with its superheavy to make it exportable.
For Iran, the deal will bring in heavy crude it could sell in Asia, the Reuters sources also said. The diluted Venezuela crude will also likely go to Asian buyers.
Reuters also reported that, according to the U.S. Treasury Department, the deal could constitute a breach of sanctions, to which both Venezuela and Iran are subjects.
“Transactions with NIOC by non-U.S. persons are generally subject to secondary sanctions,” the Treasury Department said in response to a Reuters request for comments on the deal. It added that it “retains authority to impose sanctions on any person that is determined to operate in the oil sector of the Venezuelan economy.”
Despite the sanction noose, Venezuela has been ramping up its oil exports, generating vital revenue. According to a recent Reuters report, the country, which is home to the world’s largest oil reserves, exported more than 700,000 bpd of crude in July—the highest daily export rate since February.
Most of the oil went to China and Malaysia, although the latter is usually only a stop along Venezuelan oil’s trip to China. The same report noted that three of the five crude oil blending facilities in the Orinoco Belt were operational, and another crude upgrader was preparing to restart operations after a year’s pause.
Iran, meanwhile, recently revealed plans to attract some $145 billion in oil and gas investments from both local and foreign sources.
“We plan to invest $145 billion in the development of the upstream and downstream oil industry over the next four to eight years, hence I welcome the presence of domestic and foreign investors in the industry,” Javad Owji, Iran’s new oil minister, said during a meeting with executives from China’s oil giant Sinopec.
Where Was All The Investigative Journalism On US Airstrikes The Last 20 Years?
By Caitlin Johnstone | September 18, 2021
The Pentagon has finally admitted to the long-obvious fact that it killed ten Afghan civilians, including seven children, in an airstrike in Kabul last month.
In an article with the obscenely propagandistic title “Pentagon acknowledges Aug. 29 drone strike in Afghanistan was a tragic mistake that killed 10 civilians,” the New York Times pats itself on the back for its investigative journalism showing that the so-called “ISIS-K facilitator” targeted in the strike was in fact an innocent aid worker named Zemari Ahmadi:
“The general acknowledged that a New York Times investigation of video evidence helped investigators determine that they had struck a wrong target. ‘As we in fact worked on our investigation, we used all available information,’ General McKenzie told reporters. ‘Certainly that included some of the stuff The New York Times did.’”
Indeed, the Pentagon only admitted to the unjust slaughter of civilians in this one particular instance because the mass media did actual investigative journalism on this one particular airstrike. This is an indictment of the Pentagon’s airstrike protocol, but it’s also an indictment of the mass media.
This after all comes out following a new Byline Times report which found that “at least 5.8 to 6 million people are likely to have died overall due to the War on Terror – a staggering number which is still probably very conservative.”
It also comes out two months after whistleblower Daniel Hale was sentenced to nearly four years in prison for leaking secret government information about America’s psychopathic civilian-slaughtering drone assassination program.
It also comes a few months after a Code Pink report found that the US and its allies have been dropping an average of 46 bombs per day in the so-called War on Terror for the last twenty years.
Do you remember seeing an average of 46 news reports a day on bombings conducted by the US and its allies? Do you remember even reading about one single US bombing per day in the mainstream news? I don’t. The US power alliance has for decades been continuously raining explosives from the sky on impoverished people in the Global South and the mainstream news reports on almost none of those instances, much less launches an in-depth investigation into whether each one killed who the military claims they killed.
The difference between the August 29 airstrike and the thousands which preceded it in America’s post-9/11 wars was that this one was politicized. The Biden administration ordered it to look tough on terrorism after the Kabul airport attack (most of the fatalities from which were probably due to panicked gunfire from US and/or allied troops), amidst a withdrawal for which Biden was being aggressively slammed by plutocratic media outlets eager to paint ending US wars as a bad thing that everyone should oppose.
The Pentagon doesn’t care that it snuffed out innocent lives in an airstrike; it does that all the time and its officials would do it a lot more if that’s what it took to secure their futures as lobbyists, consultants, board members and executives for defense industry corporations after they retire from the military. And the mass media don’t care either; they only cared about this one particular highly politicized airstrike during a withdrawal from a military engagement the mass media vehemently opposed.
“Pentagon acknowledges Aug. 29 drone strike in Afghanistan was a tragic mistake that killed 10 civilians.” Can you believe that headline? Not “admits” but “acknowledges”. Not “killed children while targeting an aid worker based on flimsy evidence” but “was a tragic mistake”. How many times did New York Times editors rewrite this? Imagine if this had been a Russian airstrike.
Think about all the murder victims we’d have known about if the news media had done its job and used their immense resources to investigate them as journalists should over the last twenty years. Think about how much harder it would have been for the war machine to inflict these evils upon the world if they had. Instead it’s been left to obscure bloggers and indie journalists to question these actions using scant resources and shoestring budgets.
They’ve shown that they can do these investigations into the validity of US airstrikes, and they’ve shown that they’ve spent two decades choosing not to. The mass media manipulators who provide cover for mass military murder by journalistic malpractice and negligence are just as complicit in these depraved acts of human butchery as the people firing the weapons and the officials giving the orders.
Stop Antisemitism org brands GOP congressman ‘Jew hater’ for voting against Iron Dome funding
‘Appalling slander’
RT | September 27, 2021
American conservatives condemned the Stop Antisemitism organization after it branded libertarian Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) a “Jew hater” for voting against more US funding for Israel’s Iron Dome.
Stop Antisemitism, which was launched in 2018, has listed many Americans as its “Antisemite of the week,” including pop star Dua Lipa, Daily Show host Trevor Noah, MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan, and even Human Rights Watch executive director Ken Roth – a Jewish American whose father was a refugee from Nazi Germany.
After Massie became the only Republican congressman to vote against further funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile system last week – an act consistent with his politically libertarian and fiscally conservative track record in Congress – Stop Antisemitism set its sights on the representative, publishing a photo of his face with “JEW HATER” stamped on top.
“Rep. Thomas Massie’s voting record clearly shows his lack of support of the Jewish people and the Jewish Nation. In fact, his views are aligned with those of other notorious antisemites like Congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib,” the organization declared, also listing Massie’s opposition to the government “labeling BDS as antisemitic.”
Though Stop Antisemitism’s campaign against Massie received support from Arizona state representative and Democrat Zionist Alma Hernandez, many prominent conservatives and libertarians piled onto the organization in protest.
“This is defamatory nonsense. Massie has explained in detail how he votes, and he is against *government funding* of avenues where he believes the government has no role,” reacted journalist Jordan Schachtel, while Human Events co-publisher Will Chamberlain called the organization’s comments “appalling slander” and said it “should be ashamed of itself.”
Reason senior editor Robby Soave tweeted, “This is nonsense. It is not anti-Semitic to believe that other countries should pay for their own defenses,” while New York Young Republican Club’s chairman, Gavin Wax, accused Stop Antisemitism of “devaluing the meaning of antisemitism” with its “incredibly stupid” attack.
The organization wasn’t alone, however. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) also took out an ad criticizing Massie, which the Kentucky Republican called “foreign interference” in US elections.
When his colleague Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-California) chimed in, Massie dismissed him as an expert in “foreign affairs” – a reference to Swalwell’s ties with a suspected Chinese spy.
Despite experiencing heavy backlash for its campaign against Massie, the organization refused to apologize or withdraw the congressman as “Antisemite of the week.”
Massie is not the only elected US official to be chosen as “Antisemite of the week.” Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) have previously been the subjects of attack by Stop Antisemitism.
COVID-19: Vaccinating kids – the debate heats up
By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | September 23, 2021
5- to 11-year-olds
This week, the Australian Federal Health Minister announced a commitment to COVID-19 vaccines for kids aged 5 to 11 years pending TGA-approval, after Pfizer claimed, in a press release, that it had obtained “favourable” results.
Pfizer’s ongoing Phase 2/3 trial apparently showed the vaccine “was safe, well tolerated and showed robust neutralising antibody responses”. However, the results were not submitted to the drug regulator, nor were they published in a medical journal, so for now, we must take their word for it.
Pfizer registered the trial plan, showing that it tested a lower dose (10µg) as well as two higher doses (20µg and 30µg) in 5- to 11-year-olds. Whether the vaccine can provide protection against symptomatic disease or severe COVID-19 remains to be seen.
The manufacturer also claimed that the vaccine had a “favourable safety profile”, however, it is important to note that the trial has not enrolled enough children (2,268) to detect any rare but serious harms that might arise from the vaccine
Only healthy kids were recruited in the trial – children with known or suspected immunodeficiency, a history of autoimmune disease, any condition associated with prolonged bleeding, anyone receiving treatment with immunosuppressive therapy or corticosteroids were excluded from the trial.
Notably, these are the same cohort of children who have been prioritised for the vaccine.
Despite little to no data available for its safety and efficacy, the Israeli Ministry of Health gave the green light to start vaccinating high risk 5- to 11-year olds with the lower-dose (10µg) of the vaccine.
Pfizer senior vice-president Dr Bill Gruber said he felt “a great sense of urgency” in the process, and Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla said trial data would be submitted to the various international drug regulators for “immediate authorisation.”
The language of Pfizer executives, the frenzied press coverage, and the political will of Governments, is all designed to pressure drug agencies to fast-track authorisations.
Younger than 5 years old?
Pfizer announced that trial data involving children under 5 are expected later this year.
Last week, Cuba began vaccinating toddlers as young as 2, using its homegrown vaccine, the Soberana 02, from the Finlay Vaccine Institute administered at adult doses. To my knowledge, there has been no data from Phase III trials published in the peer-reviewed literature in children as young as 2 with this vaccine.
China’s drug agency has cleared three COVID-19 vaccines produced by Sinopharm and Sinovac and is vaccinating children aged 3 years and older, under emergency use authorisation.
12- to 15-year-olds
Most major western nations have authorised COVID-19 vaccines for those aged 12 years and older.
In Australia for example, children aged 12 to 15 years began receiving the mRNA vaccines last week. According to the NSW Premier, 20% of children in the state of NSW have already had their first jab.
They require a two-dose regimen, the same dose given to adults, which aligns with the US FDA and Health Canada advisories on vaccines for this age group. (See my previous analysis for 12-15yr olds)
This does not align with the UK’s more cautious approach. After significant political and media pressure, UK chief medical officers recommended a single dose of the Pfizer vaccine, because of concerns about rare side effects such as heart inflammation.
Brazil appears to be an outlier at the moment. It was reported that the Minister for Health called for the suspension of the COVID-19 immunisation of people aged 12 to 17 after the death of a 16-year old girl named Isabelli Borges Valentim, eight days after she received the Pfizer shot. Authorities are still investigating the incident but the drug regulator denies any link to the vaccine.
Myocarditis/Pericarditis
This issue has stirred up some heated debate.
Now that real world data is becoming widely available, myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the membrane surrounding the heart) are being reported as rare harms related to the Pfizer & Moderna mRNA vaccines.
Israel, because of its fast vaccine roll-out, was first to raise the alarm – 148 cases of myocarditis were reported within 30 days of immunisation, more commonly after the second jab. It prompted the Israeli Ministry of Health to launch an investigation into any possible link between these cases of myocarditis and vaccination.
Since then, other countries such as the UK, the US and Canada have corroborating data.
In June, the US FDA decided that the link between the mRNA vaccines and myocarditis, particularly in young males, was sufficiently clear that it revised its vaccine fact sheets to include a warning.
The CDC released data showing the incidence of “expected” versus “observed” incidences of myocarditis and pericarditis and found a significant increase in the observed rates. The graph shows the higher rates in red (see table numbers circled in red).
Another study, published in JAMA which looked at data from 40 hospitals in the US showed a similar pattern to the CDC, although at higher incidences, suggesting that the vaccine’s adverse events were being underreported.
Researchers then took a more granular look at the database for reported adverse events (VAERS database) between 1 January and 18 June, and found boys aged 12-15 years vaccinated with their second shot of the mRNA vaccine, with no underlying medical conditions were 4 to 6 times more likely to develop a cardiac adverse event, than ending up in hospital with COVID-19.
The study was published as a pre-print online but it ignited a twitter storm, with critics claiming the study ‘over-estimated’ the risk and it was biased because one of the authors belonged to a group that did not support making vaccines compulsory.
Sceptics say that most of the myocarditis cases are mild, and that children recover quickly from hospitalisation. Others are not so quick to dismiss the potential risk of ‘sub-clinical disease’ (myocarditis without symptoms) in children.
Notably, a retrospective multi-centre study across 16 US hospitals including patients <21 years of age with a diagnosis of myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination, found concerning abnormalities in heart tissue (the left ventricle) (See image with yellow arrows).

Jain SS, et al doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-053427.
Careful monitoring is required to see if these abnormalities lead to fibrosis, which can have long-term implications for young patients.
Early findings suggest that post-vaccination myocarditis could be mediated by the toxicity of ‘spike protein’ on heart muscle cells or from circulating spike proteins in plasma after vaccination.
The risk of myocarditis associated with contracting COVID-19 infection may be higher than that after vaccination, but more research is needed to weigh harms against benefit.
If we don’t vaccinate kids, what about long COVID?
The fear of long-COVID has been a major impetus behind vaccinating kids.
A recent review by Monash University, analysing 14 international studies on long COVID in children and adolescents, found no difference in the symptoms reported by those who had experienced COVID-19 and those who had not.
Lead researcher on the study, Professor Nigel Curtis told newsGP the review’s findings should be reassuring for parents and carers.
Similarly, a webinar hosted by The BMJ revealed the results of the largest citizen-scientist participation study to date in young children. It used a smartphone app to monitor the illness and symptoms of children after testing positive to COVID-19.
The researchers found that the median duration of illness was 6 days. Only 4.4% of children had illness duration >28 days and 1.8% had symptoms >56 days. Encouragingly, their symptom ‘burden’ was greatly reduced by this time (none became worse) with the most common symptoms being headache and fatigue.
The researchers looked at neurological symptoms such as epileptic seizures, convulsions, impaired attention and concentration, but none were reported.
Lead investigator on the study, Prof Emma Duncan from Kings College in London concluded “Long illness duration of COVID-19 in children is uncommon.”
Vaccine Mandates for kids
Despite COVID-19 vaccine mandates for teachers in places such as New York and Australia (Victoria and New South Wales), no Federal government has announced plans to make the vaccines compulsory for children (yet).
Canadian and English professors have argued that making COVID-19 vaccines mandatory for children, will “encourage uptake”.
U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has also suggested that COVID-19 vaccine mandates for students could happen at the state and local level in the US, once they have been approved for paediatric use by the US FDA.
In a surprise announcement this week, the Los Angeles public school system said students aged 12 and older will now have to be double-vaccinated by the end of the year, to attend classes on campus or take part in sports and other extracurricular activities. It remains to be seen whether other school districts will follow.
Consent from kids
Before the age of 14, minors are generally thought to lack the cognitive capacity and maturity to make rational judgments about their health.
In fact, most US state laws presume that minors lack medical decision-making capacity and therefore require parental consent for most health care decisions, including vaccination, with some exceptions.
However, in the case of COVID-19, under what is termed ‘Gillick competency’, those under 16 years can make independent decisions about a medical treatment if they can demonstrate they have the capacity to consent, even if their parent withholds consent.

This applies to every Australian state and territory as part of the ‘common law’ and in the UK.
The Victorian government has produced ‘communication packs’ for teachers and educators on how to ‘promote’ COVID-19 vaccines to minors.
Hopefully, the conversations about COVID-19 vaccines, between health professionals and minors, are conducted without coercion, pressure or judgment.
Not surprisingly, this has raised the age-old question about who is better placed to determine the best medical treatment for a child – a parent or a Government minister?
The debate will continue and experts will need to wade through muddy waters to find a balance between protecting children’s health and the uncertainty over the long-term harms of the vaccine.
Met Office’s Fake Arctic Ice Claims Mislead Public
By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | September 27, 2021

https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2021/09/24/arctic-sea-ice-decline-continues-with-2021-the-12th-lowest-summer-minimum-extent-on-record/
The Met Office’s website describes the work they do, rambling on about forecasting the weather and world leading science. Nowhere can I find any reference to publishing fake news or disseminating misleading propaganda.
According to the Cambridge Dictionary:
Decline = change to a lower amount
Continues = keeps happening
So the meaning of that headline is crystal clear:
Arctic sea ice keeps getting less.
One look at their graph shows this is patently not true, despite grossly misleading linear fit, intended to fool people.
It is very easy to show that Arctic sea ice has stabilised. As their graph itself shows, there have only been three years since 2007 with lower ice extent than that year, and eleven have had higher extents.
Also the average of the last ten years is higher than 2007’s extent.
In itself, this is too short a period to make any meaningful judgements. But that is no excuse for the Met Office to publish such a manifest falsehood.
I have left a comment on their blog, but as is usual it is blocked. Maybe Richard Betts would care to comment!
Are the Met Office so afraid of the truth?









