By Lance D Johnson | Humans Are Free | October 1, 2021
The fraudulence of covid-19 vaccines is on full display, and the evidence is sitting right out in the open. The full FDA approval for Pfizer’s COMIRNATY vaccine contained clinical proof that the inoculation increases COVID infection by over 300 percent!
A former Pfizer employee named Karen Kingston is blowing the whistle on her former employer. Kingston is currently a pharmaceutical marketing expert and biotech analyst. When she scrutinized the full FDA approval for COMIRNATY, she found blatant fraud in Pfizer’s clinical studies.
FDA Approves Pfizer’s Covid-19 Vaccine, Even Though It Increases Infection By 300 Percent
Kingston brought forth a Briefing Document from the FDA’s advisory committee meeting that took place on September 17, 2021. The title of the document is, “Application for licensure of a booster dose for COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA).” The document includes clinical studies conducted by Pfizer. These studies track the durability of immunity offered by the COMIRNATY vaccine and compare it to immunity observed in unvaccinated people.
“If you get the Pfizer vax, you’re more likely to get COVID” said Kingston, “So, when they weren’t injected, their infection rate was 1.3% and when they got injected, it was 4.34%. It went up by over 300%.” How could the FDA have glossed over this evidence and approved blatant fraud?
Since the vaccine was officially approved, the federal government started applying pressure on businesses across the US, threatening them with extortion and fines if they do not impose vaccine mandates on their employees.
The covid-19 vaccines have been injected almost 225 million times into the arms of Americans, causing severe injury and death along the way. Real world observations also support clinical data showing that the vaccines increase one’s susceptibility to covid-19.
In fact, the vaccines increase viral load in the nostrils of the vaccinated. An August 26 article by Dr. Peter McCullough shows that the covid vaccines allow the vaccinated to carry 251 times the viral load of covid-19 in their nostrils, turning them into the asymptomatic super spreaders they once feared.
Pfizer Studies Show That Being Unvaccinated Offers Greater Protection
Medical freedom rights attorney, Thomas Renz, went public with the Pfizer fraud. The Pfizer study involved over 36,000 people. Those who were injected earlier in the study were more likely to come down with covid infections later on, showing a clear trend of waning immunity. Those put in “high priority” groups, who were vaccinated earlier on, have a 36 percent greater chance of infection, compared to the group that vaccinated later on.
The group that vaccinated later on went unvaccinated for 5.1 months longer than the group that got vaccinated early on. This placebo group did not have high rates of infection while they were unvaccinated, even though they went longer without any “protection.”
Because of this, Kingston stated that the vaccinated group “have an even higher chance of being infected with COVID-19 than the 36 percent difference indicated by this portion of the study.”
The study even admitted in its conclusion: “An additional analysis appears to indicate that incidence of COVID-19 generally increased in each group of study participants with increasing time post-Dose 2.” Kingston clarified that infection rates “increase over time” when people get two doses of Pfizer mRNA.
Most shocking was the data on the placebo group. In the first four months, the placebo group had “no vaccine protection” and recorded an infection rate of 12.6 cases per 1,000 person-years. The infection rate for the unvaccinated was a meager 1.3 percent.
After their placebo period, the group got “fully vaccinated.” In just a few months, this group became more infectious and showed 43.4 cases per 1,000 person-years. Their infection rate went UP by over 300 percent to a 4.34% infection rate. Mrs. Kingston called this “super alarming.”
“They had less infection when they had no protection. So, that’s a problem,” she said.
References:
by el gato malo – bad cattitude – october 10, 2021
one of the great fears in any vaccination campaign is that the vaccine can wind up becoming the driver viral evolution and making the virus more dangerous. this is a special concern around imperfect (so called “leaky”) vaccines that are non-sterilizing. such vaccines do not stop spread or contagion of the virus. this means the virus will have lots of chances to replicate.
when you combine this with a vaccine that reduces severity of cases and prevents deaths in the vaccinated, it’s a bit of a perfect storm. you get full spread but break the evolutionary gradient towards mildness that viruses tend to follow (and that protects humanity from them).
all a virus wants is to replicate. “make a copy of me and pass it on.” that’s the biological imperative of the selfish gene. excel at it, you win. fail, you disappear. simple as that.
killing or harming the host is maladaptive to viral spread. it’s like burning down your own house with your car in the garage. now you have nowhere to live and no way to get around. that’s not a recipe for reproductive fitness.
this is a property of the world, not of the viruses themselves. so it applies to all of them, evolved and lab hotwired alike.
so viruses evolve to become less, not more virulent. they do not want to kill you. ideally, they’d like to help you. figure out how to be a useful symbiote, and you get a huge boost in propagation. (mitochondria were probably bacteria that were so useful, all our cells incorporated them.) so seeing case fatality rate (CFR) rise in a variant of a virus is like watching water flow uphill. it’s not supposed to do that and when it does, you need to suspect some external force acting on it.
and we’re seeing water flow uphill here.
i started with the england variants of concern (VoC) data. it’s the best quality and the best broken out. (the US data is just plain broken. it’s being deliberately scrubbed to prevent analysis like this.) because this data is always aggregated from feb to current period, it does not provide good temporal snapshots, but this can be fixed by subtracting the penultimate report from the current one etc. you subtract report 22’s totals from report 23 and you get just what happened in the last 2 weeks (it used to be a weekly report, now it’s bi-weekly)
what we see is not what one would expect from a virus. none of the other variants (pre vaccine) worked like this. none saw CFR rise like this. and no jump from major variant to variant saw a statistically significant rise in deadliness.
this IS however what one would expect if a virus were undergoing vaccine mediated evolution (as mareks disease did in chickens) and selecting for hotter strains because vaccinated people can carry and spread them and not die.
experienced CFR on delta is nearly 7X what it was in the beginning of june and has been galloping since the middle of july.
(note that pretty much all this data has a large artifact in it from the 21 june report (VoC 17). there was a “data-dump” in it where they caught up on a bolus of past data. it’s an artifact, not a signal. best to ignore it. i suspect the curve from mid june to mid july was smooth.)
put simply: this is not good.
delta is rapidly approaching alpha (1.1%) in terms of CFR whereas it used to be 90% lower. (it also means that the reports on delta CFR in these VoC updates are FAR too low because they are a blend of all cases and deaths back to feb, so they are averaging in the low CFR past and are slow to respond to current dynamics)
this is consistent with, but not proof of vaccines mediated evolution. to get there, we need to do better.
so now we need to start ruling things out and validating this claim to see if it’s meaningful.
first, it’s not a simpson’s paradox in age data. CFR is rising in over and under 50’s. it’s not mix shift alone. CFR in over 50’s is up 2.5X. it’s up 4-7X in under 50’s.
we’re at about a 3X rise in CFR overall in delta since the summer once we adjust for shifts in age. not as worrying as 7, but still worrying.
and the deaths are real. it’s not made up counting. this can be clearly seen when we comp CFR to the euro-momo Z scores (thoughtfully provided by frequent gato collaborator ben m at USmortality.com. z score is just a measure of deviation from expected all cause deaths. (explained HERE)
alignment is quite strong.
z score was trending negative and spiked to high levels just as CFR really started to ramp up.
z score for the year can be seen here. starting in wk 22 (may 31) (numbers after the year are weeks)
and given that we know that vaccines DO work to stop deaths in the UK (seemingly in the 50-60% range) it’s even more unexpected that CFR would be rising like this. but it is and the rise in the vaxx rate is not hampering it.
(the precise alignment here is more chart crime than signal, so i’d caution against inferring too much from it)
none of this is what one would expect. not remotely. it bucks evolution, it bucks the other variants, and it flies in the face of late stage pandemic dynamics like increase in acquired immunity (which IS sterilizing), depletion of high risk cohorts, improvements in treatment, etc. all these should be pushing CFR down.
instead, water is flowing uphill.
the question is “why?”
the other day, i discussed ADE (antibody dependent enhancement) where antibodies wind up acting as passkeys for a virus to enter cells and also the fetchingly biblically named OAS (original antigenic sin) whereby preferential training to one antibody response leads to its use against new variants of a pathogen and thereby prevents adaptation to more effective modalities.
note that these two phenomena are by no means mutually exclusive and are actually strongly synergistic.
but are they driving this issue?
i do not not think so.
CFR is (and has been) much better in the vaccinated than the unvaxxed in UK over 50’s (the highest risk category). trends are similar, but absolute values durably disparate.
whether and to what extent this is real vaccine efficacy vs cohort bias in a place where 90% of this demographic is vaccinated remains an open issue. it may simply be that only those with the weakest/most compromised immunes systems have not gotten the jab. but this is not really material here.
what IS material is the fact that CFR in the unvaxxed is trending up significantly and so is CFR in the vaxxed. but we’re not seeing many cases of re-infection and almost none of those are serious. this does not look like ADE or OAS as a major driver. if it were, there’s no reason the CFR in the unvaccinated would be rising too.
what this IS consistent with is a variant heating up and getting more and more deadly because it is not checked by normal biological limitations. vaccine mediated evolution (VME) would be very bad news for us.
we can see similar in the under 50’s, though the data here is a bit of a mess as during this period, so many very low risk under 50’s (those under 18) got vaccinated that it moved a material risk profile reduction from unvaxxed to vaxxed. i suspect that is why “CFR vaxxed” dropped. it was not vaccines working, it was the vaccinated category being “salted” with large number of the lowest risk folks around. (it also means that group left the unvaxxed, so you get an effect on both)
so i view this data as much lower quality than over 50’s, but it still looks like VME, not ADE or OAS.
this is EXACTLY what leaky vaccines did in chickens.
(read these links. THIS in particular. it’s important.)
such vaccines change the evolutionary gradient for a virus. instead of becoming less virulent/deadly, they can tend the other way because the maladaptiveness of killing the host is mitigated in the vaccinated population. this is what happened with marek’s disease in chickens.
not only is it now more lethal to them than ebola is to humans, making it one of if not THE hottest persistent disease known (killing 100% of unvaxxed birds in 10 days), but, it’s now a disease so hot that an unvaccinated chicken cannot spread it. they die too quickly. only the vaccinated birds spread the nasty strains of mareks. they’re the only ones who live long enough to shed virus.
“Previously, a hot strain was so nasty, it wiped itself out. Now, you keep its host alive with a vaccine, then it can transmit and spread in the world,” Read said. “So it’s got an evolutionary future, which it didn’t have before.”
this is an awful lot of puzzle pieces snapping together and i think we’re really starting to see what this is a picture of.
leaky vaccines that stop severe illness and death but not spread look to be affecting the evolution of the covid 19 virus.
this is an established, predictable, and well supported risk from such vaccines.
this has become my leading hypothesis.
it also explains why we’re seeing such a large rise in deaths relative to cases and deaths and hospitalization overall in so many places. it’s the virus adapting to a stressor we put on it and becoming much more dangerous as a result.
the CFR is a function of the virus, but the virus has become a function of the leaky vaccines.
and it also means the vaccine is protecting no one. yes, it seems to have 50-60% protection against death. but what good is that against a CFR that’s up 300% or more (and rising)? everyone is worse off.
negative VE’s on spread are accelerating cases and this is multiplicative with higher CFR. this is the nightmare scenario and no one is left better off as a result. the CFR among the high risk vaccinated groups is way up too.
everyone is harmed but the brunt is borne by the unvaccinated which perversely winds up looking like better vaccine efficacy. the very fact that vaccines made everyone worse off but spread the misery unevenly makes it look like vaccines are a good idea.
it’s just simple math. if we do something to one group that makes their death rate rise from 1 to 2 per 100 but that also makes the death rate in another group rise from 1 to 4 per 100, that looks like a VE of 50%. in reality, it’s killing 100% more vaxxed people and 300% more of the unvaxxed.
mistaking that gas pedal for the brake and pushing ever harder when you fail to slow would represent an accelerating disaster curve.
that’s the problem with relative measures that ignore absolute changes. you can hide all manner of calamity in such analyses.
it’s still, of course, possible that i’m wrong, but this is looking more and more like it has to be the answer. i can find nothing else fits the facts and the facts themselves are weird enough that “it’s just normal” does not look like a satisfying explanation either and we have enough features here that we can really start testing our puzzle pieces. this one aligns in an AWFUL lot of places.
for something this odd to happen, it takes a truly uncommon exogenous stressor.
i’m just not seeing what else it could be than vaccine mediated selection for hotter variants driving pernicious delta evolution.
so, i’m putting this out to you all to see if you can find some other explanation for what’s going on that fits these facts.
looking forward to the peer review as, honestly, i hope i’m wrong here. this is not an outcome that anyone wants. it’s the nightmare scenario both as a pandemic and as a political horror in the making as if this was an “own-goal”, what would the experts and politicians that pushed this plan not be willing to do to avoid accepting the blame?
because this is career or pharma franchise polonium, and that’s if you’re lucky.
let’s keep at this. one way or the other, we need to know.
the facts do not care about our feelings and epidemiology data is a lousy fabric from which to spin a wubbie to hide under.
we need to get at the truth.
(even if it makes us make a face like this)
By Brian Cloughley | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 12, 2021
On October 5 the U.S. State Department announced that the U.S. military’s arsenal of nuclear weapons numbered 3,750 as of September 30, 2020. It was stated with satisfaction that “This number represents an approximate 88 percent reduction in the stockpile from its maximum (31,255) at the end of fiscal year 1967”, although it wasn’t mentioned that the reduction since 2018 was only 35.
On the same day, the U.S. Defense Department publication Stars and Stripes reported that “an Air Force fighter jet slated to debut later this year in Europe passed a milestone when it dropped mock nuclear bombs during training flights designed to ensure its ability to fulfil NATO’s nuclear deterrence mission . . . The successful test of the F-35A Lightning II came as the 48th Fighter Wing, based at Britain’s RAF Lakenheath, reactivated the 495th Fighter Squadron last week for a new mission in Europe. [Emphasis added.] Ahead of the fighter model’s arrival at Lakenheath, two F-35As that took off from Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, completed a full weapon system demonstration, regarded as a graduation flight test for achieving nuclear certification.”
In February 2021 U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken informed the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva that “President Biden has made it clear: the U.S. has a national security imperative and a moral responsibility to reduce and eventually eliminate the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction” and President Biden pledged to “take steps to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy,” but it has not been made clear how elimination of the threat from nuclear weapons or reduction of their role in U.S. military strategy can be achieved by training more combat aircraft pilots in the use of nuclear weapons and then deploying them to Europe with their strike aircraft.
The United Kingdom has an equally interesting perspective in what it describes as its “leading approach to nuclear disarmament” and is increasing its arsenal of nuclear weapons. As the Royal United Services Institute noted in March, the UK’s 2021 Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy states that the UK is “raising a self-imposed limit on its overall nuclear warhead stockpile” of the current 225 warheads.
The Review, headed “Global Britain in a Competitive Age”, explains that in 2021 it had been announced as national policy that there would be a reduction in “our overall nuclear warhead stockpile ceiling from not more than 225 to not more than 180 by the mid-2020s. However, in recognition of the evolving security environment . . . this is no longer possible, and the UK will move to an overall nuclear weapon stockpile of no more than 260 warheads.” Then it assured the international community that in spite of increasing the number of its nuclear weapons delivery systems the United Kingdom is “strongly committed to full implementation of the NPT in all its aspects, including nuclear disarmament.”
It is intriguing that the present British government would have us believe that more nuclear weapons and deployment of 27 U.S. nuclear-capable F-35 aircraft to the UK’s Royal Air Force base at Lakenheath are in some fashion compatible with nuclear disarmament, but what is consistent is their linkage with the stockpiles of U.S. nuclear bombs already in Europe.
It is not known if there are or will be any U.S. nuclear weapons kept at Lakenheath, and no doubt the UK government would be comfortable with such storage which would add comparatively few bombs to the hundred or so already stored in vaults in air bases at Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Büchel in Germany, Aviano and Ghedi in Italy, Volkel in the Netherlands, and Incirlik in Turkey. It is regrettable that while the U.S. and Britain insist that they are trying to reduce the threat of nuclear war they are actually increasing and expanding numbers, locations and strike capabilities of nuclear weapons’ systems.
The U.S.-Nato military alliance policy is that “nuclear weapons are a core component of NATO’s overall capabilities for deterrence and defence,” resting almost entirely on U.S. nuclear delivery capabilities which are to be expanded at vast expense, with the new generation of Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Systems, now referred to as the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, likely to cost 95 billion dollars — if there are no cost overruns.
As stated by the Congressional Budget Office, it is “required by law to project the 10-year costs of nuclear forces every two years” and its latest paper, “Projected Costs of U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2021 to 2030” makes sobering reading because it is projected that U.S. taxpayers, in this era of fiscal crises, will be required to pay sixty billion dollars a year for nuclear forces over the next ten years. The Office estimates that “about $188 billion of the $551 billion total over the 2021–2030 period would go toward modernizing nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Of that amount, $175 billion would go toward modernizing the strategic nuclear triad, and $13 billion would be for modernizing tactical nuclear weapons and delivery systems.” And this does not include funding of such massive projects as the F-35 strike aircraft which will cost some $1.6 trillion.
The political justification for massive military spending on conventional and nuclear weapons by the governments in London and Washington is their contention that Russia and China pose a threat and that, in the words of the 2021 U.S. Interim National Security Strategic Guidance, Russia, for example, is “determined to enhance its global influence and play a disruptive role on the world stage.” (Presumably Washington means the sort of disruption that Associated Press reported on October 7 when “Europe’s soaring gas prices dropped . . . after Russian President Vladimir Putin suggested his country could sell more gas to European spot buyers via its domestic market in addition to through existing long-term contracts.”)
The surge in deployment of nuclear systems and the overall tenor of nuclear weapons developments in Europe do not meet with approval in the European community. For example, a survey published in January revealed that 74% of Italians, 58% of Dutch and 57% of Belgians and 83% of Germans want U.S. nuclear weapons removed from their countries, and another poll (albeit by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) found that 77% of Britons favour a total ban on nuclear weapons.
Europe is in a state of flux, and not only because of the economic and social effects of the pandemic. For example, the Warsaw government’s recent refusal to abide by European Union laws could result in Poland leaving the EU (which would be greeted with approval by most EU citizens) but this would have no effect on the U.S.-Nato military buildup — the “Enhanced Forward Presence” along Russia’s borders, backed to the hilt by nuclear weapons.
U.S. deployment of a further squadron of nuclear strike aircraft to the UK, for a “new mission in Europe”, combined with its existing stocks of nuclear weapons in Europe and Britain’s undebated decision to increase its nuclear weapons’ arsenal are signals to continental European nations that planning for nuclear war against Russia is accelerating. While these countries prefer to engage with Washington and London in a balanced fashion and wish to maintain cordial relations, it would be advisable to question the motives behind the growing emphasis on nuclear war and insist on reduction in confrontational deployments.
The justice department targets dissenters
BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • OCTOBER 12, 2021
There have been a number of suggestions online that the withdrawal of American soldiers from overseas is being undertaken to use the troops against those individuals and domestic groups that are being targeted by the Justice Department. The possibility has a certain coherency given that we have a White House that believes it has the right to forcefully inflict medical procedures on anyone who happens to live in the US, but it falls down due to the fact that the soldiers themselves might side with the dissidents as they are being sent to reeducation camps and subsequently weeded out based on their political views, even to the extent of having their social media covertly monitored. Quis custodet custodes?, one must ask.
If there is one thing that all Americans should feel pleased about with the Republican Party performance it is the fact that the then Republican dominated Senate was able to block President Barack Obama’s bid to place Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court. The downside of that is, of course, that he now is Joe Biden’s Attorney General, where he is very well placed to engage in mischief that will potentially affect all Americans. In fact, he has proven to be a more than willing accomplice in the social engineering that the Biden Administration is engaged in, to include his declaration of war against white supremacists as the single greatest terrorist threat the United States faces today.
One might well recall Taki Theodoracopulos’s recent comment that “If America survives in its current form, years from now people will wonder how society was enslaved by a minority of privileged people who would surrender and give up their mother at the first sign of an attack.” That defines Garland and those around him, but he is generally regarded by the media and those who care about such things, as a moderate, judicially speaking. As I can hardly confirm his actual views on anything, I would not dispute that assessment, but I would note that he certainly walks like a standard Democratic Party liberal duck since he has been appointed Attorney General, very tolerant of bizarre “woke” culture and taking the lead on finding and punishing domestic terrorists. The enemies list admittedly features white supremacists regarded ipso facto as extremists, but it now also includes parents who do not support “critical race theory” (CRT) in the nation’s public schools.
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has observed how “The Department of Justice’s fight against angry parents is a real testament to the authoritarian nature of the Biden administration and indeed, the entirety of the left. It takes a lot of hubris to declare that you know how to raise someone’s child better than them and send authorities to shut you down when you protest that.” To be sure, Critical Race Theory has been fairly criticized as it pretends to be an antidote to systemic racism but is itself racist in nature as it opposes a race neutral system that equally benefits everyone. It proposes that America’s governmental bodies and infrastructures are racist and supportive of “white supremacy” and must be deconstructed. It requires everything to be examined through a value system determined by identity politics and race and it views both whites and their institutions as hopelessly corrupted, if not evil. This is what will be taught to children and this is why parents are protesting.
One has to wonder if a “moderate” jurist would support using the nation’s law enforcement resources to come down on hard on people, most of whom are committing something that might be referred to as thought crimes. The mainstream media has little to say on the issue, most probably because Garland is a protected species called “Jewish” and he is also serving a liberal Democratic Administration. One notes in particular that Garland has said nothing about intensifying FBI efforts to identify, arrest, prosecute and confine the black lives matter punks who rioted, burned and looted last summer, causing billions of dollars-worth of damage, and beating and even killing those who resisted. Could it be because they are part of the Democratic Party coalition?
Some of the press coverage on Garland that does exist is embarrassing because it is exculpatory of what might be an egregious violation of the Constitution by a government that might be described truthfully as neo-totalitarian. Indeed, Garland’s most recent pronouncement on cracking down on CRT critics triggered an approving puff piece from Newsweek, which once upon a time was considered a reliable news magazine.
The article is headlined “Merrick Garland Tackles Threats to Educators Amid Critical Race Theory Furor,” which is all you need to know about what will follow. Per News-weak and Garland, educators are being threatened by racists. Its lead paragraphs states that “Attorney General Merrick Garland is taking aim at intimidation and threats of violence directed at educators and school administrators who are working to give children ‘a proper education in a safe environment.’ Garland issued a memorandum to FBI Director Christopher Wray and federal prosecutors on Monday saying there had been a ‘disturbing spike’ in threats against school personnel and promising to take measures to deal with the issue. The move from the Department of Justice comes after fraught scenes at school board meetings across the country, with heated exchanges about COVID-19 regulations and Critical Race Theory (CRT).”
Garland’s action was reportedly in response to a letter from the politically left-leaning National School Boards Association (NSBA) to President joe Biden on September 29th, comparing threats against school personnel to “domestic terrorism.” It said “… many public school officials are… facing physical threats because of propaganda purporting the false inclusion of critical race theory within classroom instruction and curricula. As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”
Garland is mobilizing what he refers to as a “Partnership among federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement.” The FBI memorandum itself argues that “In recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nation’s public schools. While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views. Threats against public servants are not only illegal, they run counter to our nation’s core values. Those who dedicate their time and energy to ensuring that our children receive a proper education in a safe environment deserve to be able to do their work without fear for their safety. The Department takes these incidents seriously and is committed to using its authority and resources to discourage these threats, identify them when they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate. In the coming days, the Department will announce a series of measures designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel.”
Merrick Garland, like Newsweek, makes pretty clear where he sits on the issue and it is beyond amusing to see him write about the “nation’s core values,” which he and his accomplices are attempting to subvert and destroy. The school boards are presumed to be completely innocent while the parents protesting against the “values” being forced down the throats of their children by the recently empowered “woke” fanatics who tend to make up many of the boards are the criminals. If Garland had looked a little deeper, he would have discovered that quite a lot of the harassment and intimidation is coming from the members of the school boards and their political allies in local government and the media, as has been evident in Loudoun County Virginia. Indeed, while Garland states his intention to stop those who would “intimidate individuals based on their views,” that is exactly what he and his friends in the world of education are trying to do, and succeeding in many places. A “proper education in a safe environment” is precisely what students are not receiving as standards are dropped and the focus on racism and transgenderism begin to influence and generally dominate what is in the curriculum, aided and abetted by hypocrites like Merrick Garland and his nominal boss the perpetually befuddled President Joe Biden.
No one can make a better assessment of what is happening to our country than former congressman Ron Paul. In a recent piece entitled “Parents Should Control Education” he observes: “In contrast to an authoritarian society, a free society recognizes that parents have both the responsibility and the right to provide their children with a quality education that reflects the parents’ values. Teachers who use their positions to indoctrinate children in beliefs that contradict the views of the parents are the ones overstepping their bounds. Restoring parental control of education should be a priority for all who believe in liberty. If government can override the wishes of parents in the name of ‘education’ or ‘protecting children’s health’ then what area of our lives is safe from government intrusion?”
Indeed Dr. Paul, with Merrick Garland at the helm and Captain Queeg in the White House no area of our lives is safe from the government.
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
By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | October 12, 2021
Despite some states tentatively beginning to lift lockdown restrictions, Australian authorities are building quarantine camps that won’t be completed until next year in order to prepare for “ongoing operations” and to house those “who have not had access to vaccination.”
According to ABC Australia, one such 1,000-bed quarantine facility at Wellcamp Airport outside Toowoomba will be fully completed by the end of March 2022.
“At this stage, the cabins will be used by domestic travellers returning from COVID hotspots,” states the report.
However, it also makes clear that the camp will be used for “ongoing operations” and will be a source of employment for the local area.
The camps is split into different zones and accommodates singles, doubles, and family rooms while being patrolled by police and security guards 24/7.
Citing new strains of COVID and people “who have not had access to vaccination,” Queensland Deputy Premier Steven Miles told the media outlet, “We anticipate there to be a continuing need for quarantine facilities.”
The government is leasing the land on which the camp is being built from the Wagner Corporation for 12 months with an option for a further 12 months after that.
Another 1,000-bed quarantine facility is also being built on a 30-hectare Army barracks site in the industrial area of Pinkenba, near Brisbane Airport.
“Why anyone who had left Australia would come back again is unclear,” writes Dave Blount. “It is possibly the most repressive country in the world regarding Covid tyranny.”
As we previously highlighted, state authorities in America are also constructing new “quarantine facilities” for Americans who are “unable to quarantine at home.”
As we reported last year, Authorities in Quebec City, Canada announced they will isolate “uncooperative” citizens in a coronavirus facility, the location of which remains a secret.
New Zealand also announced plans to place COVID infectees and their family members in “quarantine facilities.”
Back in January, German authorities also announced they would hold COVID dissidents who repeatedly fail to properly follow the rules in what was described as a ‘detention camp’ located in Dresden.
By CJ Hopkins | The Consent Factory | October 12, 2021
So, the Great New Normal Purge has begun … right on cue, right by the numbers.
As we “paranoid conspiracy theorists” have been warning would happen for the past 18 months, people who refuse to convert to the new official ideology are now being segregated, stripped of their jobs, banned from attending schools, denied medical treatment, and otherwise persecuted.
Relentless official propaganda demonizing “the Unvaccinated” is being pumped out by the corporate and state media, government leaders, health officials, and shrieking fanatics on social media. “The Unvaccinated” are the new official “Untermenschen,” an underclass of subhuman “others” the New Normal masses are being conditioned to hate.
But it isn’t just a purge of “the Unvaccinated.” Anyone deviating from the official ideology is being systematically demonized and persecuted. In Germany, Australia, and other New Normal countries, protesting the New Normal is officially outlawed. The New Normal Gestapo is going around to people’s homes to interrogate them about their anti-New Normal Facebook posts. Corporations are openly censoring content that contradicts the official narrative. New Normal goon squads roam the streets, checking people’s “vaccination” papers.
And it’s not just governments and corporations carrying out the New Normal Purge. Friends are purging friends. Wives are purging husbands. Fathers are purging children. Children are purging parents. New Normals are purging old normal thoughts. Global “health authorities” are revising definitions to make them conform to New Normal “science.”
And so on … a new official “reality” is being manufactured, right before our eyes. Anything and anyone that doesn’t conform to it is being purged, unpersoned, memory-holed, erased.
None of which should come as a surprise.
Every nascent totalitarian system, at some stage of its takeover of society, launches a purge of political opponents, ideological dissidents, and other “anti-social deviants.” Such purges can be brief or open-ended, and they can take any number of outward forms, depending on the type of totalitarian system, but you cannot have totalitarianism without them.
The essence of totalitarianism — regardless of which costumes and ideology it wears — is a desire to completely control society, every aspect of society, every individual behavior and thought. Every totalitarian system, whether an entire nation, a tiny cult, or any other form of social body, evolves toward this unachievable goal … the total ideological transformation and control of every single element of society (or whatever type of social body it comprises). This fanatical pursuit of total control, absolute ideological uniformity, and the elimination of all dissent, is what makes totalitarianism totalitarianism.
Thus, each new totalitarian system, at some point in its evolution, needs to launch a purge of those who refuse to conform to its official ideology. It needs to do this for two basic reasons: (1) to segregate or otherwise eliminate actual political opponents and dissidents who pose a threat to the new regime; and (2) and more importantly, to establish the ideological territory within which the masses must now confine themselves in order to avoid being segregated, or eliminated.
The purge must be conducted openly, brutally, so that the masses understand that the rules of society have changed, forever, that their former rights and freedoms are gone, and that from now on any type of resistance or deviation from official ideology will not be tolerated, and will be ruthlessly punished.
The purge is usually launched during a “state of emergency,” under imminent threat from some official “enemy” (e.g., “communist infiltrators,” “counter-revolutionaries,” or … you know, a “devastating pandemic”), such that the normal rules of society can be indefinitely suspended “for the sake of survival.” The more terrified the masses can be made, the more willing they will be to surrender their freedom and follow orders, no matter how insane.
The lifeblood of totalitarianism is fear … fear of both the system’s official enemy (which is constantly stoked with propaganda) and of the totalitarian system itself. That the brutality of the system is rationalized by the threat posed by the official enemy doesn’t make it any less brutal or terrifying. Under totalitarian systems (of any type or scale) fear is a constant and there is no escape from it.
The masses’ fear is then channeled into hatred … hatred of the official “Untermenschen,” whom the system encourages the masses to scapegoat. Thus, the purge is also a means of allowing the masses to purge themselves of their fear, to transform it into self-righteous hatred and unleash it on the “Untermenschen” instead of the totalitarian system, which, obviously, would be suicidal.
Every totalitarian system — both the individuals running it and the system, structurally — instinctively understands how all this works. New Normal totalitarianism is no exception.
Just reflect on what has happened over the last 18 months.
Day after day, month after month, the masses have been subjected to the most destructive psychological-terror campaign in the history of psychological terror. Sadly, many of them have been reduced to paranoid, anus-puckering invalids, afraid of the outdoors, of human contact, afraid of their own children, afraid of the air, morbidly obsessed with disease and death … and consumed with hatred of “the Unvaccinated.”
Their hatred, of course, is utterly irrational, the product of fear and propaganda, as hatred of “the Untermenschen” always is. It has absolutely nothing to do with a virus, which even the New Normal authorities admit. “The Unvaccinated” are no more of a threat to anyone than any other human being … except insofar as they threaten the New Normals’ belief in their delusional ideology.
No, we are way past rationality at this point. We are witnessing the birth of a new form of totalitarianism. Not “communism.” Not “fascism.” Global-capitalist totalitarianism. Pseudo-medical totalitarianism. Pathologized totalitarianism. A form of totalitarianism without a dictator, without a definable ideology. A totalitarianism based on “science,” on “fact,” on “reality,” which it creates itself.
I don’t know about you, but, so far, it has certainly made quite an impression on me. So much so that I have mostly set aside my satirical schtick to try to understand it … what it actually is, why it is happening, why it is happening now, where it is going, and how to oppose it, or at least disrupt it.
The way I see it, the next six months will determine how successful the initial stages of the roll-out of this new totalitarianism will be. By April of 2022, either we’ll all be showing our “papers” to the New Normal Gestapo to be able to earn a living, attend a school, dine at a restaurant, travel, and otherwise live our lives, or we will have thrown a monkey wrench into the machinery. I do not expect GloboCap to abandon the roll-out of the New Normal over the longer term — they are clearly committed to implementing it — but we have the power to ruin their opening act (which they’ve been planning and rehearsing for quite some time).
So, let’s go ahead and do that, shall we? Before we get purged, or unpersoned, or whatever. I’m not sure, as I haven’t seen a “fact-check” yet, but I believe there are some commercial airline pilots in the USA who are showing us the way.
#
By Sally Beck | TCW Defending Freedom | October 12, 2021
SINCE February, the BBC have been urging pregnant women to take the Covid vaccination despite the fact that no manufacturer will complete a trial in expectant mothers before December this year. Instead, British health chiefs have relied on information from women in the US who accidentally found themselves pregnant after taking the Covid jab, and reported the results of their pregnancy to the V-safe app. V-safe is hosted by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) but it is not a scientific study.
This fact has been ignored, notably by Lucy Chappell, Professor in Obstetrics at King’s College London, and the BBC, to tell women it is safe to go ahead and get the jab.
If that were the case, there would be no related adverse reactions reported to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the drug company-funded government body collating information on Covid vaccination safety.
But it is there in black and white: miscarriages, stillbirths and one foetal death have been reported, 590 to date, 12 last week alone. Pfizer have one third more reports than AstraZeneca and Moderna, primarily because the AZ jab has been suspended for under-40s and the Moderna has been in use only since April, while the Pfizer has been available since December 2020. Women in their 30s were invited to receive the jab in May so those of child-bearing age have officially been receiving the vaccine for around four months.
The MHRA is not concerned about the figures and says: ‘The numbers of reports of miscarriage and stillbirth are low in relation to the number of pregnant women who have received Covid-19 vaccines to date (more than 92,000 up to end of August 2021) and how commonly these events occur in the UK outside of the pandemic. There is no pattern from the reports to suggest that any of the Covid-19 vaccines used in the UK, or any reactions to these vaccines, increase the risk of miscarriage or stillbirth.’ No further detail is provided so it is not possible to scrutinise the figures.
This sounds reassuring, but when American investigative journalist Jefferey Jaxen analysed a study by 21 authors analysing data from V-safe published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, he discovered they had manipulated the figures. He was not the only one and Dr Hong Sun PhD, from Dedalus Healthcare, Antwerp, Belgium, complained to the NEJM editor.
The published figures showed a rate of 12.6 per cent miscarriage in women 20 weeks pregnant and under, which is similar to pre-Covid figures and raises no red flags. They did not include 700 reports of miscarriage in women over 20 weeks pregnant. Once those figures were added, the miscarriage rate increased to 82 per cent.
As always, the devil is in the detail, and without additional detail from the MHRA or Big Pharma, it is impossible to tell whether British women should be worried.
Latest Yellow Card scheme figures are published below with 1,698 fatalities reported. That’s an increase of 66 deaths in the three weeks since we published the last figures from September 9.
Updated report published October 7, 2021
MHRA Yellow Card Reporting up to September 29, 2021
• Pfizer BioNTech: 22.5million people – 42.1m doses – Yellow Card reporting rate 1 in 189 people impacted
• Oxford/AstraZeneca: 24.9m people – 48.9m doses – Yellow Card reporting rate 1 in 106 people impacted
• Moderna: 1.4m people – 2.6m doses – Yellow Card reporting rate 1 in 84 people impacted
Overall, 1 in 132 people injected experiences and reports a Yellow Card Adverse Event. A significant proportion require urgent medical care, and the effects may be life-changing or long-lasting. The MHRA says as few as 10 per cent of reactions may be reported.
Reactions – 335,344 (Pfizer) + 830,818 (AZ) + 53,032 (Moderna) + 3,372 (Unknown) = 1,222,566
Reports – 118,970 (Pfizer) + 233,904 (AZ) + 16,582 (Moderna) + 1118 (Unknown) = 370,574 people impacted
Fatal – 552 (Pfizer) + 1097 (AZ) + 19 (Moderna) + 30 (Unknown) = 1,698
Blood Disorders – 11,342 (Pfizer) + 7474 (AZ) + 972 (Moderna) + 47 (Unknown) = 19,835
Anaphylaxis – 486 (Pfizer) + 820 (AZ) + 40 (Moderna) + 1 (Unknown) = 1,347
Acute Cardiac – 5,734 (Pfizer) + 9,474 (AZ) + 671 (Moderna) + 42 (Unknown) = 15,921
Pericarditis/Myocarditis (Heart inflammation) – 560 (Pfizer) + 288 (AZ) + 126 (Moderna) + 2 (Unknown) = 976
Infections – 7,902 (Pfizer) + 18,572 (AZ) + 883 (Moderna) + 96 (Unknown) = 27,453
Herpes – 1,666 (Pfizer) + 2,524 (AZ) + 93 (Moderna) + 15 (Unknown) = 4,298
Headaches & Migraines – 26,145 (Pfizer) + 92,289 (AZ) + 3610 (Moderna) + 266 (Unknown) = 122,310
Eye Disorders – 5,562 (Pfizer) + 14,044 (AZ) + 601 (Moderna) + 62 (Unknown) = 20,269
Blindness – 107 (Pfizer) + 292 (AZ) + 16 (Moderna) + 4 (Unknown) = 419
Deafness – 205 (Pfizer) + 372 (AZ) + 17 (Moderna) + 2 (Unknown) = 596
Spontaneous Abortions – 346 + 8 stillbirth/foetal death (Pfizer) + 207 + 3 stillbirth (AZ) + 35 + 1 foetal death (Moderna) + 2 (Unknown) = 590 + 12
Skin Disorders – 23,303 (Pfizer) + 51,098 (AZ) + 7,418 (Moderna) + 238 (Unknown) = 82,057
Psychiatric Disorders – 6,970 (Pfizer) + 17,425 (AZ) + 1,070 (Moderna) + 77 (Unknown) = 25,542
Facial Paralysis incl. Bell’s Palsy – 757 (Pfizer) + 913 (AZ) + 58 (Moderna) + 7 (Unknown) = 1,735
Strokes and CNS haemorrhages – 525 (Pfizer) + 2094 (AZ) + 19 (Moderna) + 10 (Unknown) = 2,648
Guillain-Barré Syndrome – 53 (Pfizer) + 428 (AZ) + 3 (Moderna) + 5 (Unknown) = 489
Nervous System Disorders – 57,975 (Pfizer) + 176,644 (AZ) + 8,321 (Moderna) + 633 (Unknown) = 243,573
BCG Scar Reactivation – 46 (Pfizer) + 35 (AZ) + 30 (Moderna) + 1 (Unknown) = 112
Respiratory Disorders – 14,352 (Pfizer) + 29,009 (AZ) + 1420 (Moderna) + 120 (Unknown) = 43,901
Pulmonary Embolism & Deep Vein Thrombosis – 618 (Pfizer) + 2,806 (AZ) + 23 (Moderna) + 20 (Unknown) = 3,467
Seizures – 789 (Pfizer) + 1,926 (AZ) + 140 (Moderna) + 12 (Unknown) = 2,867
Paralysis – 327 (Pfizer) + 786 (AZ) + 42 (Moderna) + 6 (Unknown) = 1,161
Nosebleeds – 782 (Pfizer) + 2242 (AZ) + 82 (Moderna) + 9 (Unknown) = 3,115
Dizziness – 9,123 (Pfizer) + 24,486 (AZ) + 1654 (Moderna) + 91 (Unknown) = 35,354
Renal/Urinary Disorders – 915 (Pfizer) + 2,590 (AZ) + 116 (Moderna) + 23 (Unknown) = 3,644
Vomiting – 3,609 (Pfizer) + 11,423 (AZ) + 657 (Moderna) + 42 (Unknown) = 15,731
Reproductive/Breast Disorders – 21,797 (Pfizer) + 18,593 (AZ) + 2893 (Moderna) + 149 (Unknown) = 43,432
The Last Refuge | October 3, 2021
Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) used his time on the Senate floor to discuss recently released COVID-19 data from Public Health England in the U.K. [DATA pdf Here]
Ironically, Senator Johnson is forced to use the Senate floor to share the information in an effort to stop government and Big Tech censorship of the discussion. Unlike the rest of the nation, the House and Senate chamber rules create a free speech zone that prohibits anyone from censoring congressional debate and discussion.
Senator Johnson outlines data from the U.K. clearly showing the vaccines offer no protection from the claimed Delta variant. COVID-19 is carried and shed by vaccinated individuals. The subsequent rate of COVID-19 hospitalization and COVID-19 death appears unaffected by the vaccine itself. WATCH:
As Senator Johnson notes: 63% of the deaths in the U.K. during the 7 month period being discussed were among the vaccinated population.
The data Ron Johnson is sharing is available HERE in pdf form
BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | OCTOBER 10, 2021
From the beginning of the March 2020 lockdowns for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the subject of natural immunity (also called post-infection immunity) has been neglected. Once the vaccination became widely available, what began with near silence at the beginning turned nearly into a complete blackout of the topic.
Even now, there is an absence of open discussion, presumably in the interests of promoting universal vaccination and required documentation of such vaccination as a condition of participating in public life and even the jobs marketplace. Still, the science exists. Many studies exist. Their authors deserve credit, recognition, and to have their voices heard.
These studies demonstrate what was and is already known: natural immunity for a SARS-type virus is robust, long-lasting, and broadly effective even in the case of mutations, generally more so than vaccines. In fact, a major contribution of 20th-century science has been to expand upon and further elucidate this principle that has been known since the ancient world. Every expert presumably knew this long before the current debates. The effort to pretend otherwise is a scientific scandal of the highest order, especially because the continued neglect of the topic is affecting the rights and freedoms of billions of people.
People who have contracted the virus and recovered deserve recognition. For that matter, people who prefer an exposure risk to the virus in order to gain robust immunity deserve the freedom to make that choice. The realization that natural immunity – which pertains now to perhaps half of the US population and billions around the world – is effective in providing protection should have a dramatic effect on vaccine mandates.
Individuals whose livelihoods and liberties are being deprecated and deleted need access to the scientific literature as it pertains to this virus. They should send a link to this page far and wide. The scientists have not been silent; they just haven’t received the public attention they deserve. The preparation of this list was assisted by links provided by Paul Elias Alexander and Rational Ground’s own cheat sheet on natural immunity, which also includes links to popular articles on the topic.
1. One-year sustained cellular and humoral immunities of COVID-19 convalescents, by Jie Zhang, Hao Lin, Beiwei Ye, Min Zhao, Jianbo Zhan, et al. Clinical Infectious Diseases, October 5, 2021. “SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG antibodies, and also NAb can persist among over 95% COVID-19 convalescents from 6 months to 12 months after disease onset. At least 19/71 (26%) of COVID-19 convalescents (double positive in ELISA and MCLIA) had detectable circulating IgM antibody against SARS-CoV-2 at 12m post-disease onset. Notably, the percentages of convalescents with positive SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell responses (at least one of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen S1, S2, M and N protein) were 71/76 (93%) and 67/73 (92%) at 6m and 12m, respectively. Furthermore, both antibody and T-cell memory levels of the convalescents were positively associated with their disease severity.”
2. Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections, by Sivan Gazit, Roei Shlezinger, Galit Perez, Roni Lotan, Asaf Peretz, Amir Ben-Tov, Dani Cohen, Khitam Muhsen, Gabriel Chodick, Tal Patalon. MedRxiv, August 25, 2021. “Our analysis demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant for a symptomatic disease as well…. This analysis demonstrated that natural immunity affords longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization due to the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”
3. Shedding of Infectious SARS-CoV-2 Despite Vaccination, by Kasen K. Riemersma, Brittany E. Grogan, Amanda Kita-Yarbro, Gunnar E. Jeppson, David H. O’Connor, Thomas C. Friedrich, Katarina M. Grande, MedRxiv, August 24, 2021. “The SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant might cause high viral loads, is highly transmissible, and contains mutations that confer partial immune escape. Outbreak investigations suggest that vaccinated persons can spread Delta. We compared RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) data from 699 swab specimens collected in Wisconsin 29 June through 31 July 2021 and tested with a qualitative assay by a single contract laboratory. Specimens came from residents of 36 counties, most in southern and southeastern Wisconsin, and 81% of cases were not associated with an outbreak. During this time, estimated prevalence of Delta variants in Wisconsin increased from 69% to over 95%. Vaccination status was determined via self-reporting and state immunization records.”
4. Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals, by Nabin K. Shrestha, Patrick C. Burke, Amy S. Nowacki, Paul Terpeluk, Steven M. Gordon, MedRxiv, June 5, 2021. “Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.”
5. Large-scale study of antibody titer decay following BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine or SARS-CoV-2 infection, by Ariel Israel, Yotam Shenhar, Ilan Green, Eugene Merzon, Avivit Golan-Cohen, Alejandro A Schäffer, Eytan Ruppin, Shlomo Vinker, Eli Magen. MedRxiv, August 22, 2021. “This study demonstrates individuals who received the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine have different kinetics of antibody levels compared to patients who had been infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, with higher initial levels but a much faster exponential decrease in the first group.”
6. Discrete Immune Response Signature to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination Versus Infection, by Ellie Ivanova, Joseph Devlin, et al. Cell, May 2021. “While both infection and vaccination induced robust innate and adaptive immune responses, our analysis revealed significant qualitative differences between the two types of immune challenges. In COVID-19 patients, immune responses were characterized by a highly augmented interferon response which was largely absent in vaccine recipients.”
7. SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans, by Jackson S. Turner, Wooseob Kim, Elizaveta Kalaidina, Charles W. Goss, Adriana M. Rauseo, Aaron J. Schmitz, Lena Hansen, Alem Haile, Michael K. Klebert, Iskra Pusic, Jane A. O’Halloran, Rachel M. Presti, Ali H. Ellebedy. Nature, May 24, 2021. “This study sought to determine whether infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces antigen-specific long-lived BMPCs in humans. We detected SARS-CoV-2 S-specific BMPCs in bone marrow aspirates from 15 out of 19 convalescent individuals, and in none from the 11 control participants…. Overall, our results are consistent with SARS-CoV-2 infection eliciting a canonical T-cell-dependent B cell response, in which an early transient burst of extrafollicular plasmablasts generates a wave of serum antibodies that decline relatively quickly. This is followed by more stably maintained levels of serum antibodies that are supported by long-lived BMPCs.”
8. Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells, by Kristen W. Cohen, Susanne L. Linderman, Zoe Moodie, Julie Czartoski, Lilin Lai, Grace Mantus, Carson Norwood, Lindsay E. Nyhoff, Venkata Viswanadh Edara, et al. MedRxiv, April 27, 2021. “Ending the COVID-19 pandemic will require long-lived immunity to SARS-CoV-2. We evaluated 254 COVID-19 patients longitudinally from early infection and for eight months thereafter and found a predominant broad-based immune memory response. SARS-CoV-2 spike binding and neutralizing antibodies exhibited a bi-phasic decay with an extended half-life of >200 days suggesting the generation of longer-lived plasma cells. In addition, there was a sustained IgG+ memory B cell response, which bodes well for a rapid antibody response upon virus re-exposure.”
9. Incidence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 infection among previously infected or vaccinated employees, by N Kojima, A Roshani, M Brobeck, A Baca, JD Klausner. MedRxiv, July 8, 2021. “Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 were associated with decreased risk for infection or re-infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a routinely screened workforce. The was no difference in the infection incidence between vaccinated individuals and individuals with previous infection. Further research is needed to determine whether our results are consistent with the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants.”
10. Single cell profiling of T and B cell repertoires following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine, by Suhas Sureshchandra, Sloan A. Lewis, Brianna Doratt, Allen Jankeel, Izabela Ibraim, Ilhem Messaoudi. BioRxiv, July 15, 2021. “Interestingly, clonally expanded CD8 T cells were observed in every vaccinee, as observed following natural infection. TCR gene usage, however, was variable, reflecting the diversity of repertoires and MHC polymorphism in the human population. Natural infection induced expansion of larger CD8 T cell clones occupied distinct clusters, likely due to the recognition of a broader set of viral epitopes presented by the virus not seen in the mRNA vaccine. Our study highlights a coordinated adaptive immune response where early CD4 T cell responses facilitate the development of the B cell response and substantial expansion of effector CD8 T cells, together capable of contributing to future recall responses.”
11. mRNA vaccine-induced T cells respond identically to SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern but differ in longevity and homing properties depending on prior infection status, Jason Neidleman, Xiaoyu Luo, Matthew McGregor, Guorui Xie, Victoria Murray, Warner C. Greene, Sulggi A. Lee, Nadia R. Roan. BioRxiv, July 29, 2021. “In infection-naïve individuals, the second dose boosted the quantity and altered the phenotypic properties of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells, while in convalescents the second dose changed neither. Spike-specific T cells from convalescent vaccinees differed strikingly from those of infection-naïve vaccinees, with phenotypic features suggesting superior long-term persistence and ability to home to the respiratory tract including the nasopharynx. These results provide reassurance that vaccine-elicited T cells respond robustly to emerging viral variants, confirm that convalescents may not need a second vaccine dose, and suggest that vaccinated convalescents may have more persistent nasopharynx-homing SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells compared to their infection-naïve counterparts.”
12. Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for up to 8 months after infection, Jennifer M. Dan, Jose Mateus, Yu Kato, Kathryn M. Hastie, et al., Science, January 6, 2021. “Understanding immune memory to SARS-CoV-2 is critical for improving diagnostics and vaccines, and for assessing the likely future course of the COVID-19 pandemic. We analyzed multiple compartments of circulating immune memory to SARS-CoV-2 in 254 samples from 188 COVID-19 cases, including 43 samples at ≥ 6 months post-infection. IgG to the Spike protein was relatively stable over 6+ months. Spike-specific memory B cells were more abundant at 6 months than at 1 month post symptom onset. SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cells and CD8+ T cells declined with a half-life of 3-5 months. By studying antibody, memory B cell, CD4+ T cell, and CD8+ T cell memory to SARS-CoV-2 in an integrated manner, we observed that each component of SARS-CoV-2 immune memory exhibited distinct kinetics.”
13. Persistence of neutralizing antibodies a year after SARS-CoV-2 infection, by Anu Haveri, Nina Ekström, Anna Solastie, Camilla Virta, Pamela Österlund, Elina Isosaari, Hanna Nohynek, Arto A. Palmu, Merit Melin. MedRxiv, July 16, 2021. “We assessed the persistence of serum antibodies following wild-type SARS-CoV-2 infection six and twelve months after diagnosis in 367 individuals of whom 13% had severe disease requiring hospitalization. We determined the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S-IgG) and nucleoprotein IgG concentrations and the proportion of subjects with neutralizing antibodies (NAb).”
14. Quantifying the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 reinfection over time, by Eamon O Murchu, Paula Byrne, Paul G. Carty, et al. Rev Med Virol. 2021. “Reinfection was an uncommon event (absolute rate 0%–1.1%), with no study reporting an increase in the risk of reinfection over time. Only one study esti- mated the population‐level risk of reinfection based on whole genome sequencing in a subset of patients; the estimated risk was low (0.1% [95% CI: 0.08–0.11%]) with no evidence of waning immunity for up to 7 months following primary infection. These data suggest that naturally acquired SARS‐CoV‐2 immunity does not wane for at least 10 months post‐infection. However, the applicability of these studies to new variants or to vaccine‐induced immunity remains uncertain.”
15. SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positivity protects against reinfection for at least seven months with 95% efficacy, by Laith J. Abu-Raddad, Hiam Chemaitelly, Peter Coyle, Joel A. Malek. The Lancet, July 27, 2021. “Reinfection is rare in the young and international population of Qatar. Natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy ~95% for at least seven months.”
16. Natural immunity against COVID-19 significantly reduces the risk of reinfection: findings from a cohort of sero-survey participants, by Bijaya Kumar Mishra, Debdutta Bhattacharya, Jaya Singh Kshatri, Sanghamitra Pati. MedRxiv, July 19, 2021. “These findings reinforce the strong plausibility that development of antibody following natural infection not only protects against re-infection by the virus to a great extent, but also safeguards against progression to severe COVID-19 disease.”
17. Protection of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection is similar to that of BNT162b2 vaccine protection: A three-month nationwide experience from Israel, by Yair Goldberg, Micha Mandel, Yonatan Woodbridge, Ronen Fluss, Ilya Novikov, Rami Yaari, Arnona Ziv, Laurence Freedman, Amit Huppert, et al.. MedRxiv, April 24, 2021. “Similarly, the overall estimated level of protection from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection for documented infection is 94·8% (CI:[94·4, 95·1]); hospitalization 94·1% (CI:[91·9, 95·7]); and severe illness 96·4% (CI:[92·5, 98·3]). Our results question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals.”
18. Immune Memory in Mild COVID-19 Patients and Unexposed Donors Reveals Persistent T Cell Responses After SARS-CoV-2 Infection, by Asgar Ansari, Rakesh Arya, Shilpa Sachan, Someshwar Nath Jha, Anurag Kalia, Anupam Lall, Alessandro Sette, et al. Front Immunol. March 11, 2021. “Using HLA class II predicted peptide megapools, we identified SARS-CoV-2 cross-reactive CD4+ T cells in around 66% of the unexposed individuals. Moreover, we found detectable immune memory in mild COVID-19 patients several months after recovery in the crucial arms of protective adaptive immunity; CD4+ T cells and B cells, with a minimal contribution from CD8+ T cells. Interestingly, the persistent immune memory in COVID-19 patients is predominantly targeted towards the Spike glycoprotein of the SARS-CoV-2. This study provides the evidence of both high magnitude pre-existing and persistent immune memory in Indian population.”
19. Live virus neutralisation testing in convalescent patients and subjects vaccinated against 19A, 20B, 20I/501Y.V1 and 20H/501Y.V2 isolates of SARS-CoV-2, by Claudia Gonzalez, Carla Saade, Antonin Bal, Martine Valette, et al, MedRxiv, May 11, 2021. “ No significant difference was observed between the 20B and 19A isolates for HCWs with mild COVID-19 and critical patients. However, a significant decrease in neutralisation ability was found for 20I/501Y.V1 in comparison with 19A isolate for critical patients and HCWs 6-months post infection. Concerning 20H/501Y.V2, all populations had a significant reduction in neutralising antibody titres in comparison with the 19A isolate. Interestingly, a significant difference in neutralisation capacity was observed for vaccinated HCWs between the two variants whereas it was not significant for the convalescent groups.”
20. Highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response in asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, by Nina Le Bert, Hannah E. Clapham, Anthony T. Tan, Wan Ni Chia, et al, Journal of Experimental Medicine, March 1, 2021. “Thus, asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2–infected individuals are not characterized by weak antiviral immunity; on the contrary, they mount a highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response.”
21. SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell memory is sustained in COVID-19 convalescent patients for 10 months with successful development of stem cell-like memory T cells, Jae Hyung Jung, Min-Seok Rha, Moa Sa, Hee Kyoung Choi, Ji Hoon Jeon, et al, Nature Communications, June 30, 2021. “In particular, we observe sustained polyfunctionality and proliferation capacity of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells. Among SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells detected by activation-induced markers, the proportion of stem cell-like memory T (TSCM) cells is increased, peaking at approximately 120 DPSO. Development of TSCM cells is confirmed by SARS-CoV-2-specific MHC-I multimer staining. Considering the self-renewal capacity and multipotency of TSCM cells, our data suggest that SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells are long-lasting after recovery from COVID-19, thus support the feasibility of effective vaccination programs as a measure for COVID-19 control.”
22. Antibody Evolution after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination, by Alice Cho, Frauke Muecksch, Dennis Schaefer-Babajew, Zijun Wang, et al, BioRxiv, et al, BioRxiv, July 29, 2021. “We conclude that memory antibodies selected over time by natural infection have greater potency and breadth than antibodies elicited by vaccination. These results suggest that boosting vaccinated individuals with currently available mRNA vaccines would produce a quantitative increase in plasma neutralizing activity but not the qualitative advantage against variants obtained by vaccinating convalescent individuals.” Newer version reads: “These results suggest that boosting vaccinated individuals with currently available mRNA vaccines will increase plasma neutralizing activity but may not produce antibodies with breadth equivalent to those obtained by vaccinating convalescent individuals.”
23. Differential effects of the second SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose on T cell immunity in naïve and COVID-19 recovered individuals, by Carmen Camara, Daniel Lozano-Ojalvo, Eduardo Lopez-Granados. Et al., BioRxiv, March 27, 2021. “While a two-dose immunization regimen with the BNT162b2 vaccine has been demonstrated to provide a 95% efficacy in naïve individuals, the effects of the second vaccine dose in individuals who have previously recovered from natural SARS-CoV-2 infection has been questioned. Here we characterized SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific humoral and cellular immunity in naïve and previously infected individuals during full BNT162b2 vaccination. Our results demonstrate that the second dose increases both the humoral and cellular immunity in naïve individuals. On the contrary, the second BNT162b2 vaccine dose results in a reduction of cellular immunity in COVID-19 recovered individuals, which suggests that a second dose, according to the current standard regimen of vaccination, may be not necessary in individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.”
24. COVID-19 natural immunity: Scientific Brief. World Health Organization. May 10, 2021. “Available scientific data suggests that in most people immune responses remain robust and protective against reinfection for at least 6-8 months after infection (the longest follow up with strong scientific evidence is currently approximately 8 months). Some variant SARS-CoV-2 viruses with key changes in the spike protein have a reduced susceptibility to neutralization by antibodies in the blood. While neutralizing antibodies mainly target the spike protein, cellular immunity elicited by natural infection also target other viral proteins, which tend to be more conserved across variants than the spike protein.”
25. SARS-CoV-2 re-infection risk in Austria, by Stefan Pilz, Ali Chakeri, John Pa Ioannidis, et al. Eur J Clin Invest. April 2021. “We recorded 40 tentative re-infections in 14 840 COVID-19 survivors of the first wave (0.27%) and 253 581 infections in 8 885 640 individuals of the remaining general population (2.85%) translating into an odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of 0.09 (0.07 to 0.13). We observed a relatively low re-infection rate of SARS-CoV-2 in Austria. Protection against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection is comparable with the highest available estimates on vaccine efficacies. Further well-designed research on this issue is urgently needed for improving evidence-based decisions on public health measures and vaccination strategies.”
26. Anti-spike antibody response to natural SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population, by Jia Wei, Philippa C. Matthews, Nicole Stoesser, et al, MedRxiv, July 5, 2021. “We estimated antibody levels associated with protection against reinfection likely last 1.5-2 years on average, with levels associated with protection from severe infection present for several years. These estimates could inform planning for vaccination booster strategies.”
27. SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of antibody-positive compared with antibody-negative health-care workers in England: a large, multicentre, prospective cohort study (SIREN), by Victoria Jane Hall, FFPH, Sarah Foulkes, MSc, Andre Charlett, PhD, Ana Atti, MSc, et al. The Lancet, April 29, 2021. “A previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed 7 months following primary infection. This time period is the minimum probable effect because seroconversions were not included. This study shows that previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces effective immunity to future infections in most individuals.”
28. SARS-CoV-2 Natural Antibody Response Persists for at Least 12 Months in a Nationwide Study From the Faroe Islands, by Maria Skaalum Petersen, Cecilie Bo Hansen, Marnar Fríheim Kristiansen, et al, Open Forum Infectious Diseases, Volume 8, Issue 8, August 2021. “Although the protective role of antibodies is currently unknown, our results show that SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persisted at least 12 months after symptom onset and maybe even longer, indicating that COVID-19-convalescent individuals may be protected from reinfection. Our results represent SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunity in nationwide cohorts in a setting with few undetected cases, and we believe that our results add to the understanding of natural immunity and the expected durability of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immune responses. Moreover, they can help with public health policy and ongoing strategies for vaccine delivery.
29. Associations of Vaccination and of Prior Infection With Positive PCR Test Results for SARS-CoV-2 in Airline Passengers Arriving in Qatar, by Roberto Bertollini, MD, MPH1; Hiam Chemaitelly, MSc2; Hadi M. Yassine. JAMA Research Letter, June 9, 2021. “Of 9180 individuals with no record of vaccination but with a record of prior infection at least 90 days before the PCR test (group 3), 7694 could be matched to individuals with no record of vaccination or prior infection (group 2), among whom PCR positivity was 1.01% (95% CI, 0.80%-1.26%) and 3.81% (95% CI, 3.39%-4.26%), respectively. The relative risk for PCR positivity was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.17-0.28) for vaccinated individuals and 0.26 (95% CI, 0.21-0.34) for individuals with prior infection compared with no record of vaccination or prior infection.”
Articles in the popular media
Why COVID-19 Vaccines Should Not Be Required for All Americans, by Marty Makary, US News, August 21, 2021
Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine—but vaccination remains vital, by Meredith Wadson, Science, August 26, 2021
Natural infection vs vaccination: Which gives more protection? By David Rosenberg, Israeli National News, July 13, 2021.
Flu survivors still immune after 90 years, by Ed Yong, National Geographic, August 17, 2008.
Rescind Vaccine Mandates: Open Letter to Medical Societies, Hospitals, Clinics, and Other Healthcare Facilities, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, August 31, 2021.
University Vaccine Mandates Violate Medical Ethics, By Aaron Kheriaty and Gerard V. Bradley, Wall Street Journal, June 14, 2021.
Immunity to the Coronavirus May Last Years, New Data Hint, by Apoorva Mandavilli, New York Times, November 17, 2020.
COVID-19 induces lasting antibody protection, Tamari Bhandara, Washington University School of Medicine, May 24, 2021.
The World Health Organization Oversold the Vaccine and Deprecated Natural Immunity, by Jeffrey Tucker, Brownstone Institute, August 29, 2021.
Why Does the CDC Recognize Natural Immunity for Chicken Pox but Not Covid? By Paul Elias Alexander, Brownstone Institute, September 17, 2021.
Rand Paul and Xavier Becerra Square Off on Natural Immunity, with Devastating Results, by Brownstone Institute, October 2, 2021.
Lockdowns, Mandates, and Natural Immunity: Kulldorff vs. Offit, by Brownstone Institute, October 6, 2021.
Hospitals Should Hire, Not Fire, Nurses with Natural Immunity, by Martin Kulldorff, October 1, 2021.
The Strange Neglect of Natural Immunity, by Jayanta Bhattacharya, Brownstone Institute, July 28, 2021.
The Brownstone Institute for Social and Economic Research is a nonprofit organization conceived of in May 2021 in support of a society that minimizes the role of violence in public life.
By Jonathan Turley | The Hill | October 11, 2021
“Caution: Free Speech May Be Hazardous to Your Health.” Such a rewording of the original 1965 warning on tobacco products could soon appear on social media platforms, if a Senate hearing this week is any indicator. Listening to former Facebook product manager Frances Haugen, senators decried how Facebook is literally killing people by not censoring content, and Haugen proposed a regulatory board to protect the public.
But before we embrace a new “ministry of information” model to protect us from dangerous viewpoints, we may want to consider what we would lose in this Faustian free-speech bargain.
Warnings over the “addiction” and “unhealthy” content of the internet have been building into a movement for years. In July, President Biden slammed Big Tech companies for “killing people” by failing to engage in even greater censorship of free speech on issues related to the pandemic. On Tuesday, many senators were enthralled by Haugen’s testimony because they, too, have long called for greater regulation or censorship. It all began reasonably enough over concerns about violent speech, and then expanded to exploitative speech. However, it continued to expand even further as the regulation of speech became an insatiable appetite for silencing opposing views.
In recent hearings with social media giants, members like Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) were critical of limiting censorship to areas like election fraud and instead demanded censorship of disinformation on climate change and other subjects. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) has repeatedly called for “robust content modification” to remove untrue or misleading information.
Haugen lashed out at what she said was the knowing harm committed against people, particularly children, by exposing them to disinformation or unhealthy views. Haugen wants the company to remove “toxic” content and change algorithms to make such sites less visible. She complained that sites with a high engagement rate are more likely to be favored in searches. However, the problem is that sites deemed false or harmful are too popular. Haugen said that artificially removing “likes” is not enough because the popularity or interest in some sites will still push them to the top of searches.
It was a familiar objection. Just the week before, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called for Amazon to steer readers to “true” books on climate change. Her objection was that the popularity of “misleading” books was pushing them to the top of searches, and she wants the algorithms changed to help readers pick what she considers to be healthier choices — meaning, more in line with her views.
Similarly, Haugen’s solution seems to be … well, her: “Right now, the only people in the world who are trained to analyze these experiments, to understand what is happening inside … there needs to be a regulatory home where someone like me could do a tour of duty after working at a place like [Facebook], and have a place to work on things like regulation.” Censorship programs always begin with politicians and bureaucrats who — in their own minds — have the benefit of knowing what is true and the ability to protect the rest of us from our harmful thoughts.
Ironically, I have long been a critic of social media companies for their rapid expansion of censorship, including the silencing of political critics, public health experts and pro-democracy movements at the behest of foreign governments like China and Russia. I am unabashedly an internet originalist who favors an open, free forum for people to exchange ideas and viewpoints — allowing free speech to be its own disinfectant of bad speech.
Facebook has been running a slick campaign to persuade people to embrace corporate censorship. Yet, now, even the Facebook censors are being denounced as too passive in the face of runaway free speech. The focus is on the algorithms used to remove content or, as with Haugen and Warren, used to flag or promote popular sites.
Haugen describes her approach as a “non-content-based solution” but it is clearly not that. She objects to algorithms like “downstream MSI” which tracks traffic and pushes postings based on past likes or comments. As explained by one site, it is “based on their ability to engage users, not necessarily its usefulness or truthfulness.” Of course, the objection to those “un-useful” sites is their content and claimed harm.
Like Warren, Haugen is calling for what I have criticized as “enlightened algorithms” to protect us from our own bad choices. Our digital sentinels are “non-content-based” but will magically remove bad content to prevent unhealthy choices.
There is no question that the internet is fueling an epidemic of eating disorders and other great social problems. The solution, however, is not to create regulatory boards or to reduce free speech. Europe has long deployed such oversight boards in removing what it considers harmful stereotypes from advertising and barring images of honey or chips — but the results have been underwhelming at best.
It is no accident that authoritarian countries have long wanted such regulation, since free speech is a threat to their power. Now, we also have U.S. academics writing that “China was right” all along about censorship, and public officials demanding more power to censor further. We have lost faith in free speech, and we are being told to put our faith into algorithmic guardians.
We can confront our problems more effectively by using good speech to overcome bad speech. When it comes to minors, we can use parents to protect their children by increasing parental controls over internet access; we can help parents with more or better programs and resources for mental illnesses. Of course, it is hard to advocate for restraint when the image of an anorexic child is juxtaposed against the abstract concept of free speech. However, that is the siren’s call of censorship: Protecting that child by reducing her free-speech rights is no solution for her — but it is a solution for many who want more control over opposing views.
Free speech is not some six-post-a-day addiction that should be cured with algorithmic patches. There is no such thing as a content-neutral algorithm that removes only harmful disinformation — because behind each of those enlightened algorithms are people who are throttling speech according to what they deem to be harmful thoughts or viewpoints.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
RT | October 11, 2021
Critics have almost universally praised the new documentary on Dr. Anthony Fauci, but audiences have seemingly hated it, even accusing review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes of trying to hide the movie’s unpopularity.
National Geographic’s ‘Fauci’ has been playing in select cinemas since September 10 and premiered on the Disney Plus streaming service last week. Trailers for the film focus heavily on Fauci and his work combating Covid-19, during which time he has become one of the more controversial figures in American politics.
The film, however, takes a positive look at Fauci and focuses more on tales about the health figure from his family, as well as public figures the infectious disease expert has worked with in the past, such as U2 frontman Bono and former President George W. Bush.
On Rotten Tomatoes, which aggregates reviews from selected critics and then gives a ‘rotten’ or ‘fresh’ score, the film holds a 91% positive rating, based on 30 positive reviews and three negative. The rating from audience members, however, was conspicuously missing from the website until Monday. As of Sunday, only one review, which was negative, had been posted despite the film being out for weeks.
The site was accused of ‘hiding’ the audience score in an effort to spin the movie’s increasingly negative coverage.
On Monday, an audience score did appear, and it showed valleys of difference in opinion from critics to the audience, with users awarding the film a 2% average from over 250 ratings (though it began with a 4% rating that has continually dropped). Despite the average now showing, there is still a lack of actual user reviews on the site, though many users may have chosen to simply drop a rating instead of writing a review.
“Two Americas,” writer Josh Jordan tweeted, including a screenshot of the ‘Tomatometer’ for ‘Fauci’ along with the recently-released comedy special from Dave Chappelle, which has been labeled transphobic by critics, but has been a popular title on Netflix. Critics on Rotten Tomatoes gave the movie a ‘rotten’ score of 33% while audiences awarded a near perfect score.
Fauci critics were quick to mock the film’s near-universal panning from audience members.
The Rotten Tomatoes score for ‘Fauci’ is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to negative reviews. On IMDB, the movie has a 1.5 rating from over 6000 users.
Trailers for the movie on YouTube haven’t fared much better. One posted by National Geographic has over 100,000 ‘dislikes’ and less than 8000 ‘likes’, as of this writing.
A Disney Plus trailer, on the other hand, has just over 1000 ‘likes’ and over 20,000 ‘dislikes’.
Rotten Tomatoes has been accused of bias in the past, and the company has often chalked up near-universal negative reactions from audiences to trolls’ review-bombing.
In 2019, the company disabled pre-release comments and removed their ‘Want to See’ function – which allowed ratings based on how excited users were for a film – in response to early backlash against franchise pictures accused by critics of going ‘woke’, such as ‘Star Wars: The Last Jedi’ and ‘Captain Marvel’.
Two years before that decision, debate around Rotten Tomatoes and the political influence the audience can have was still a heated debate. Outspoken liberal and comedian Amy Schumer claimed in 2017 that her comedy special ‘The Leather Special’ was review-bombed by the “alt-right” over her comments on Donald Trump and other Republicans (50% critic rating/4% audience). At the time, the site responded again by limiting user functions by removing a five-star system in favor of a positive or negative rating from audiences.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, conservative artists have often pointed to the fact that films aimed at right-leaning audiences often score much lower with critics than audiences as proof the company is more open to ‘certifying’ liberal critics than right-of-center or conservative ones.
Producer John Aglialoro blamed near-universal bad reviews from “hateful” critics on Rotten Tomatoes for his 2011 film ‘Atlas Shrugged: Part I’ struggling to find an audience in theaters (he would go on to produce two sequels covering the last two thirds of Ayn Rand’s influential novel).
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By David Swanson | September 20, 2016
Excerpted from the just released book War Is Never Just.
World War II is often called “the good war,” and has been since the U.S. war on Vietnam to which it was then contrasted. World War II so dominates U.S. and therefore Western entertainment and education, that “good” often comes to mean something more than “just.” The winner of the “Miss Italy” beauty pageant earlier this year got herself into a bit of a scandal by declaring that she would have liked to live through World War II. While she was mocked, she was clearly not alone. Many would like to be part of something widely depicted as noble, heroic, and exciting. Should they actually find a time machine, I recommend they read the statements of some actual WWII veterans and survivors before they head back to join the fun.[i] For purposes of this book, however, I am going to look only at the claim that WWII was morally just. … continue
 | Unome on How hawks in US are trying to… |
| Unome on Pentagon orders withdrawal of… |
| Unome on 15 nations have made their pos… |
 | Kayleen on UK has flown 200 spy missions… |
 | poisonedwater on Hamas slams Biden for linking… |
| poisonedwater on 15 nations have made their pos… |
 | Bill Francis on Britain At War-The Final … |
 | roberthstiver on Pro-Palestinian protests grow… |
| roberthstiver on UK has flown 200 spy missions… |
| Bill Francis on Pro-Palestinian protests grow… |
 | nancy hollander on How Britain Sabotaged Ukraine… |
 | 5 dancing shlomos on ‘We Get Paid to Vaccinate Your… |
Aletho News If Americans Knew International Solidarity Movement Richie Allen No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 