Aletho News


Why Not Question “the Holocaust” in Schools?

The standard narrative does not stand up to serious historical scrutiny


There has been major pushback against a Texas state education official who said that if schools are adhering to a new state law that mandates teaching alternative points of view on controversial issues having a course and a book on the holocaust, for example, would suggest providing material that reflects other interpretations of that historical event. The comment came from a Texas school district administrator named Gina Peddy in the Carroll Independent School District in Southlake, which is in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, who was in a training session explaining to teachers her directive regarding which books can be available in classroom libraries. She told teachers that if they have books about the Holocaust in their classrooms, they should also have books that offer “opposing” or “other” viewpoints on the subject.

Reportedly a staff member who was present secretly made an audio recording of the training session which was then shared with NBC News, which broke the story.

The Texas law was and is intended to lessen the impact of the current “woke” campaign by progressive educators to rewrite American and international history to reflect the dark side, notably by emphasizing issues like slavery and oppression of minorities. Texas legislators insist, not unreasonably, that presenting an essentially negative view of American history as envisioned by Critical Race Theory (CRT) must be balanced by having a curriculum that also includes discussion of the many positive achievements of the United States of America. In the recording, Peddy, the school district’s executive director of curriculum and instruction, told the teachers that the new law applies to any “widely debated and currently controversial” issues. She was quoted as saying “And make sure that if you have a book on the Holocaust, that you have one that has an opposing, that has other perspectives.”

Predictably, on such a hot wire issue Peddy has had little or no support from her peers either locally or in the education establishment. The school district Superintendent Lane Ledbetter posted on Facebook an “apology regarding the online article and news story.” He said Peddy’s comments were “in no way to convey that the Holocaust was anything less than a terrible event in history. Additionally, we recognize there are not two sides of the Holocaust. We also understand this bill does not require an opposing viewpoint on historical facts.”

Clay Robison, a spokesman for the Texas State Teachers Association, responded “We find it reprehensible for an educator to require a Holocaust denier to get equal treatment with the facts of history. That’s absurd. It’s worse than absurd. And this law does not require it.” Republican state Senator Bryan Hughes, who wrote the bill that became the law, denied that anyone should come up with alternative views on what he called matters of “good and evil” or to remove books that offer only one perspective on the Holocaust.

Jews in Peddy’s school district and elsewhere in both Texas and nationally have inevitably also risen to the bait, denouncing any attempt made to challenge what they view as an issue fundamental to their understanding of their place in the world and in history. One Jewish former student Jake Berman asserted that “The facts are that there are not two sides of the Holocaust. The Nazis systematically killed millions of people.”

Ledbetter, Robison and Hughes should perhaps consider that they are suggesting that their new law should only apply on “controversial” racial issues, not on other historical developments and it is curious that educated people should consider a multi-faceted transnational historical event that has inter alia a highly politicized context a “fact.” The holocaust narrative in and of itself is the creation of men and women after the fact with an agenda to justify the creation and support for the State of Israel and should be subject to the same inquiry as any other facet of the Second World War and what came after.

The tale of “the holocaust” is essentially a contrived bit of history that serves a political objective wrapped up in what purports to be a powerful statement regarding man’s inhumanity to man. Jewish groups generally speaking consider the standard narrative with its highly questionable six million dead, gas chambers, extermination camps, and soap made from body fat to be something like sacred ground, with its memorialization of the uniqueness of Jewish suffering. Serious scholars who have actually looked at the narrative and the numbers and sequences of events are not surprisingly skeptical of many of the details.

As a first step, it is helpful to look at controversial Professor Norman Finkelstein’s carefully documented book The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. Finkelstein, to be sure, believes there was something like a genocide of European Jews and even lost some family members due to it. He does not, however, necessarily believe many of the details provided by the standard narrative and official promoters of that story to include the numerous holocaust museums. In his view, powerful interests have hijacked “the Holocaust,” and use it to further their own objectives. He wrote “Organized Jewry has exploited the Nazi holocaust to deflect criticism of Israel’s and its own indefensible policies. Nazi genocide has been used to justify criminal policies of the Israeli state and US support for these policies.”

And there is also a money angle, as there often is. Per Finkelstein, Jewish organizations in the US have also exploited the situation of the dwindling number of aging holocaust survivors to extort “staggering sums of money from the rest of the world. This is not done not for the benefit of needy survivors but for the financial advantage of these organizations.”

As taking courses in the holocaust are mandated in the public school systems of twenty states (and soon to be more due to pressure from local Jewish groups) and is used to validate the billions of US taxpayer dollars given annually to the state of Israel it would seem that supporters of the narrative should have the confidence as well as sufficient integrity to defend their product. But that is, of course, not the case. They would prefer to have their chosen narrative unchallenged, raising the usual claims of anti-Semitism and “holocaust denial” to silence critics. One of the “textbooks” frequently used in public schools that mandate holocaust education is Night by Elie Wiesel, whom Finkelstein has dubbed “the high huckster of the holocaust.” “Night” claims to be autobiographical but is full of errors in time and place. It is at least in part a work of fiction. Similarly, the “Diary of Anne Frank” was published after editing by her survivor father and parts of it have been challenged.

As a general rule, contentious issues where advocates attempt to silence opponents by claiming that what they are promoting is based on fact and cannot be challenged should be challenged. In Europe, powerful Jewish constituencies have even made it illegal to criticize or deny the holocaust narrative. In America, that day may soon be coming as Jewish groups increasingly seek to criminalize questioning of the factual basis of the holocaust as well as any criticism of Israel.

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 address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is

October 26, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | 4 Comments

Ten red flags in the FDA’s risk-benefit analysis of Pfizer’s EUA application to jab American children 5 to 11

By Toby Rogers | October 25, 2021

Where to even begin with the FDA’s preposterous risk-benefit analysis of Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 “vaccine” in children ages 5 to 11?

Let’s start with my bona fides. I have a year of undergraduate statistics at one of the best liberal arts colleges in America (Swarthmore). I have a year of graduate statistics at the masters program rated #1 for policy analysis (UC Berkeley). And I have a Ph.D. in political economy from one of the top universities in the world (University of Sydney). My research focus is on corruption in the pharmaceutical industry so I’ve read scientific studies in connection with vaccines nearly every day for 5 years. Earlier in my career I worked professionally tearing apart shoddy cost-benefit analyses prepared by corporations that were trying to get tax breaks, contracts, and other concessions from local government. Suffice it to say I’ve thought a lot about risk-benefit analysis and I’m better equipped than most to read one of these documents.

The FDA’s risk-benefit analysis in connection with Pfizer’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) application to inject children ages 5 to 11 with their COVID-19 vaccine is one of the shoddiest documents I’ve ever seen.

Let’s take it from the top:

🚩 COVID-19 rates in children ages 5 to 11 are so low that there were ZERO cases of severe COVID-19 and ZERO cases of death from COVID in either the treatment (n= 1,518) or control group (n= 750). So any claims you see in the press about the Pfizer vaccine being “90% effective” in children are meaningless because they are referring to mild cases from which children usually recover quickly (and then have robust broad spectrum immunity). So there is literally no emergency in this population for which one could apply for Emergency Use Authorization. Pfizer’s application should be dead on arrival if the FDA actually followed the science and their own rules. We will return to this topic below.

🚩 Pfizer’s clinical trial in kids was intentionally undersized to hide harms. This is a well known trick of the pharmaceutical industry. The FDA even called them out on it earlier this summer and asked Pfizer to expand the trial and Pfizer just ignored them because they can. (Pfizer fudged it by importing data from a different study but this other study only monitored adverse outcomes for 17 days so if anything the new data polluted rather than clarified outcomes). To put it simply, if the rate of particular adverse outcome in kids as a result of this shot is 1 in 5,000 and the trial only enrolls 1,518 in the treatment group then one is unlikely to spot this particular harm in the clinical trial. Voilà “Safe & Effective(TM)”.

🚩 Pfizer only enrolled “participants 5-11 years of age without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.” Does the Pfizer mRNA shot wipe out natural immunity and leave one worse-off than doing nothing as shown in this data from the British government? Pfizer has no idea because children with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection were excluded from this trial. This was by design. Toxic polluters have learned to not ask questions that they do not want the answers to, lest they wind up staring at their own smoking gun in a future court case.

According to an analysis by Alex Berenson:

“What the British are saying is they are now finding the vaccine interferes with your body’s innate ability after infection to produce antibodies against not just the spike protein but other pieces of the virus. Specifically, vaccinated people don’t seem to be producing antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, the shell of the virus, which are a crucial part of the response in unvaccinated people. This means vaccinated people will be far more vulnerable to mutations in the spike protein EVEN AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN INFECTED AND RECOVERED ONCE (or more than once, probably). It also means the virus is likely to select for mutations that go in exactly that direction because those will essentially give it an enormous vulnerable population to infect. And it probably is still more evidence the vaccines may interfere with the development of robust long-term immunity post-infection.”

🚩 Did Pfizer LOSE CONTACT with 4.9% of their clinical trial participants? The FDA risk-benefit document states: “Among Cohort 1 participants, 95.1% had safety follow-up ≥2 months after Dose 2 at the time of the September 6, 2021 data cutoff.” So what happened with those 4.9% who did not have safety follow-up 2 months after Dose 2? Were they in the treatment or control group? We have no idea because Pfizer isn’t saying. Given the small size of the trial, failing to follow up with 4.9% of the participants potentially skews the results.

🚩 The follow up period was intentionally too short. This is another well-know trick of the pharmaceutical industry designed to hide harms. Cohort 1 appears to have been followed for 2 months, cohort 2 was only monitored for adverse events for 17 days. Many harms from vaccines including cancer and autoimmune disorders take much longer to show up. As the old saying goes, “you can have it quick or you can have it done right, but you cannot have both.” Pfizer chose quick.

🚩 The risk-benefit model created by the FDA only looks at one known harm from the Pfizer mRNA shot — myocarditis. But we know that the real world harms from the Pfizer mRNA shot go well beyond myocarditis and include anaphylaxis, Bell’s Palsy, heart attack, thrombocytopenia/ low platelet, permanent disability, shingles, and Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) to name a few. Cancer, diabetes, endocrine disruption, and autoimmune disorders may show up later. But the FDA does not care about any of that because they have a vaccine to sell so they just ignore all of those factors in their model.

🚩 Pfizer intentionally wipes out the control group as soon as they can by vaccinating all of the kids who initially got the placebo. They claim that they are doing this for “ethical reasons”. But everyone knows that Pfizer’s true aim is to wipe out any comparison group so that there can be no long term safety studies. Wiping out the control group is a criminal act and yet Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, and AZ do this as standard practice with the blessing of the FDA/CDC.

🚩 Given all of the above, how on earth did the FDA claim any benefits at all from this shot? You should probably sit down for this part because it’s a doozy! Here’s the key sentence:

Vaccine effectiveness was inferred by immunobridging SARS-CoV-2 50% neutralizing antibody titers (NT50, SARS-CoV-2 mNG microneutralization assay).

Wait, what!? I’ll explain. There were ZERO cases of severe COVID-19 in the clinical trial of children ages 5 to 11. So Pfizer and the FDA just ignored all of the actual health outcomes (they had to, there is no emergency, so the application is moot). INSTEAD Pfizer switched to looking at antibodies in the blood. In general, antibodies are a poor predictor of immunity. And the antibodies in the blood of these 5 to 11 year old children tell us nothing because again, there were zero cases of severe COVID-19 in this study (none in the treatment group, none in the control group). So Pfizer had to get creative! What they came up with is “immuno-bridging”. Pfizer looked at the level of antibodies in the bloodwork of another study, this one involving people 16 to 25 years old, figured out the level of antibodies that seems to be protective in that population, then figured out how many kids ages 5 to 11 had similar levels of antibodies in their blood, and then came up with a number for how many cases, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths would be prevented by this shot in the 5 to 11 population in the future, based on the antibody levels and health outcomes from the 16 to 25 year old population. If your head hurts from that tortured logic, it should, because such chicanery is unprecedented in a risk-benefit analysis.

So when the FDA uses this tortured logic at the beginning of their briefing document, all of the calculations that stem from this will be flat out wrong. Not just wrong but preposterous and criminally wrong.

The whole ballgame comes down to Table 14 on page 34 of the FDA’s risk-benefit document. And there the red flags come fast and furious.

🚩 The FDA model only assesses the benefits of vaccine protection in a 6-month period after completion of two doses. Furthermore it assumes constant vaccine efficacy during that time period. This is problematic on several counts.

First, reducing mild cases in children is not a desired clinical outcome. As Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche points out, mass vaccination turns kids into shedders of more infectious variants.

“Under no circumstances should young and healthy people be vaccinated as it will only erode their protective innate immunity towards Coronaviruses (CoV) and other respiratory viruses. Their innate immunity normally/ naturally largely protects them and provides a kind of herd immunity in that it dilutes infectious CoV pressure at the level of the population, whereas mass vaccination turns them into shedders of more infectious variants. Children/ youngsters who get the disease mostly develop mild to moderate disease and as a result continue to contribute to herd immunity by developing broad and long-lived immunity. If you are vaccinated and get the disease, you may develop life-long immunity too but why would you take the risk of getting vaccinated, especially when you’re young and healthy? Firstly, there is the risk of potential side effects; secondarily, there is the ever increasing risk that your vaccinal antibodies will no longer be functional while still binding to the virus, thereby increasing the likelihood of ADE or even severe disease….”

Second, we know that vaccine efficacy in the month after the first dose is negative because it suppresses the immune system and it begins to wane after 4 months so all of the FDA’s estimates of vaccine efficacy are inflated.

Third, the harms of myocarditis from these shots will likely unfold over the course of years. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA technology notes that the FDA is admitting that children will be injected twice a year forever (hence the six month time frame in the FDA risk-benefit model). But the risks of “adverse events such as cardiomyopathy will be cumulative.” So any model that only looks at a six month time frame is hiding the true adverse event rate.

🚩 The FDA/Pfizer play fast and loose with their estimates of myocarditis. First they estimate “excess” (read: caused by the shot) myocarditis using data from the private “Optum health claim database” instead of the public VAERS system (p. 32). So it’s impossible for the public to verify their claims. Then, when it comes to estimating how many children with vaccine-induced myocarditis will be hospitalized and admitted to the ICU they use the Vaccine Safety Datalink (see page 33). Why switch to a different database for those estimates? Finally, there is no explanation for how they calculated “excess” myocarditis deaths, so they just put 0. Red flag, red flag, red flag.

The FDA estimates that there will be 106 extra myocarditis cases per 1 million double-jabbed children 5-11. There are 28,384,878 children ages 5 to 11 in the U.S. The Biden administration wants to inject Pfizer mRNA shots into all of them and has already purchased enough doses to do just that (even though only 1/3rd of parents want to jab their kids with this shot). So (if the Biden administration has its way) 106 excess myocarditis cases per 1 million x 28.38 million people would be 3,009 excess myocarditis cases post-vaccination if the Pfizer vaccine is approved.

And over the course of several years many of those children will die.

Dr. Anthony Hinton (“Consultant Surgeon with 30 years experience in the NHS”) points out that myocarditis has a 20% fatality rate after 2 years and a 50% fatality rate after 5 years:

So the FDA has it exactly backwards — they want to prevent mild COVID in children which reduces herd immunity and they just flat out lie about the harms from myocarditis.

I’ve taken the liberty to correct the FDA’s Table 14 with actual real world data and extended it over 5 years. It looks like this:

study by Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated that VAERS only captured 1% of actual vaccine injuries. Steve Kirsch has done elaborate modeling that puts the Under-Reporting Factor of COVID-19 vaccine deaths at 41 (so multiply the above numbers by 41). And myocarditis is just one of a multitude of possible harms from COVID-19 vaccines. Dr. Jessica Rose recently calculated an Under-Reporting Factor of 31 for all severe adverse events following vaccination.


The Pfizer vaccine fails any honest risk-benefit assessment in connection with its use in children ages 5 to 11. The FDA’s risk-benefit analysis of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine in children ages 5 to 11 is shoddy. It used tortured logic (that would be rejected by any proper academic journal) in order to reach a predetermined result that is not based in science. The FDA briefing document is a work of fiction and it must be withdrawn immediately. If the FDA continues with this grotesque charade it will cause irreparable harms to children and the FDA leadership will one day be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

October 26, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

FDA Panel Endorse Pfizer Shots for 5- to 11-Year-Olds, Experts Say it’s ‘Unnecessary and Will Do More Harm Than Good’

By Megan Redshaw | The Defender | October 26, 2021

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) advisory committee today endorsed Pfizer’s COVID vaccine for children ages 5 to 11, despite strong objections raised during the meeting by multiple scientists and physicians.

The vote passed with 17 supporting it and one abstention.

Before the shots can be rolled out, the FDA will have to formally authorize the vaccine, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) must also weigh in with its own recommendations — but the Biden administration’s announcement last week that it has already ordered 68 million doses of the pediatric vaccine suggests Pfizer’s request will sail through.

During today’s meeting, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Committee (VRBPAC) heard evidence from Pfizer and regulators, and listened to concerns from numerous experts.

According to the FDA website, as of Oct. 25, the agency had received 139,470 comments from the public prior to today’s meeting — a number federal officials described as strikingly high.

As he opened the meeting, Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), said, “I want to acknowledge the fact that there are strong feelings that have clearly been expressed by members of the public both for and against” authorization.

Marks stressed the only question before the experts was whether shots should be allowed, not whether to mandate them, the New York Times reported.

The dose for younger children would be one-third the strength given to people 12 and older, with two shots given three weeks apart.

Based on CDC data presented during the meeting, among children 5 to <12 years of age, there have been approximately 1.8 million confirmed and reported COVID cases since the beginning of the pandemic, and only 143 COVID-related deaths in the U.S. through Oct. 14.

In this same age group, there were 8,622 COVID-related hospitalizations through Sept 18.

“This translates to cumulative incidence rates of approximately 6,000 and 30 per 100,000 for confirmed COVID cases and COVID-related hospitalizations, respectively, among children 5 to <12 years of age,” Pfizer’s application said.

Children with underlying medical conditions, such as asthma, diabetes and obesity, made up two-thirds of severe COVID cases.

Pfizer provided safety data on two study cohorts of children ages 5 to 11, both of roughly equal size. The first group was followed only for about two months, the second for only two-and-a-half weeks.

The two-month cohort included 2,268 children ages 5 to 11. Of the 2,268 children, 1,518 received the vaccine and 750 received a placebo. Each received two shots spaced three weeks apart.

Pfizer’s study found its vaccine was about 91% effective against symptomatic COVID in children, based on 16 cases of COVID in the placebo group and three cases in the vaccinated group over the brief follow-up period.

Most side effects occurred within a couple of days and included pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, muscle pains and chills, Pfizer said.

According to Pfizer, the number of participants in the current clinical development program was “too small to detect any potential risks of myocarditis associated with vaccination.”

Long-term safety of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine “to evaluate long-term sequelae of post-vaccination myocarditis/pericarditis” in participants 5 to <12 years of age will not be studied until after the vaccine is authorized for children,” Pfizer’s application noted.

Pfizer data insufficient, kids’ risk of vaccine injury greater than COVID risk, experts say

Experts raised concerns over the lack of safety and efficacy data presented by Pfizer for use of its COVID vaccine in younger children, and they pointed to increasing safety signals based on reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

They also questioned the need to vaccinate children — whose risk of dying from COVID is “almost nil” — at all.

According to Dr. Meryl Nass, member of the Children’s Health Defense Scientific Advisory Panel, Pfizer once again did not use all of the children who participated in the trial in their safety study.

“Three thousand children received Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, but only 750 children were selectively included in the company’s safety analysis,” Nass said. “Studies in the 5-11 age group are essentially the same as the 12-15 group — in other words, equally brief and unsatisfying, with inadequate safety data and efficacy data, with no strong support for why this type of immuno-bridging analysis is sufficient.”

Nass said, “All serious adverse events were considered unrelated to the vaccine.”

During the meeting and in its FDA application, Pfizer argued children should be vaccinated to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission, yet the company did not assess asymptomatic transmission.

Dr. Ofer Levy, a VRBPAC member, asked for evidence that Pfizer’s vaccine prevents transmission.

Dr. William Gruber, senior vice president of Pfizer Vaccine Clinical Research and Development, said they did not assess whether the vaccine prevents transmission, but said there is evidence the vaccine prevents transmission in adults.

When questioned further, Gruber was unable to cite specific evidence to back his assertion.

Steve Kirsch, founder of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, asked the panel how they could do a risk-benefit analysis with Pfizer’s COVID vaccine if they did not know the CDC’s VAERS under-reporting factor (URF).

Kirsch asked:

“How can you do a risk-benefit of analysis of COVID vaccines if you don’t know the URF? This is extremely, extremely important. You have been assuming it has been one. It is not one. Using a URF of 41, which is calculated using CDC methodology, we find over 300,000 excess deaths in VAERS. If the vaccine didn’t kill these people, what did?”

“How many Americans have to die before you pull the plug?” Kirsch asked.

Kirsch also questioned the panel on why Maddie de Garay’s severe adverse reaction to the Pfizer vaccine, which left her paralyzed, was not reported by the company to the FDA.

Dr. Jessica Rose, viral immunologist and biologist, told the panel EUA of biological agents requires the existence of an emergency and the nonexistence of alternate treatment.

“There is no emergency and COVID-19 is exceedingly treatable,” Rose said.

In a peer-reviewed study co-authored by Rose, myocarditis rates were significantly higher in people 13 to 23 years old within eight weeks of the COVID vaccine rollout.

In 12- to15-year-olds, Rose said, reported cases of myocarditis were 19 times higher than background rates.

“In an act of censorship, this paper has been temporarily removed and it has now been killed without criticism of the work,” Rose said, noting the timing of the removal was strange.

Rose said tens of thousands of reports have been submitted to VAERS for children ages 0 to 18.

Rose explained:

“In this age group, 60 children have died — 23 of them were less than 2 years old. It is disturbing to note that “product administered to patient of inappropriate age was filed 5,510 times in this age group. Two children were inappropriately injected, presumably by a trained medical professional, and subsequently died.”

Dr. Josh Guetzkow, a senior lecturer at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said expanding the EUA to children is unnecessary, premature and will do more harm than good.

Guetzkow said there is no emergency for children, especially healthy ones whose risk of severe illness and death is “almost nil.”

Guetzkow said kids with pre-existing conditions and prior COVID infections were not included in Pfizer’s study, so including them in the EUA is negligence.

“Pfizer’s trial is woefully underpowered to detect specific safety concerns, such as myocarditis, just like the adolescent study was, and if they weren’t able to detect an unexpected safety concern there, they wouldn’t be able to here,” Guetzkow said.

Guetzkow said:

“In Pfizer’s study, only .5% of controls were dropped due to important protocol violations, versus 3% in the treatment group. The odds of that happening by chance are 1 in 10,000. This deviation is poorly explained with no ITT analysis. The study is not double-blind and may be subject to bias. Most VSD safety monitoring programs have not reported results, why not wait?”

Guetzkow said, “from CDC reports, we can expect that for every 18 child hospitalizations prevented, at least 43 will end up in the hospital for all causes following vaccination,” yet, the “FDA’s risk-benefit analysis only counts myocarditis hospitalization.”

“Why ignore the V-safe data, and shouldn’t FDA verify Pfizer’s efficacy and immunobridging analysis first?” he asked.

Guetzkow said VAERS shows alarming safety signals, which cannot be attributed to increased vaccination, simulated reporting or COVID infections.

“We calculated the ratio of adverse events reported per million Pfizer vaccinations to reports per million flu vaccinations among teenagers to see what to expect in children. Serious events are reported 51% more often for Pfizer, deaths 47 times, life-threatening conditions 49 times,” Guetzkow said.

Guetzkow asked the panel to look at the data on COVID vaccines compared to flu vaccines. Pointing to the data on reproductive organs, Guetzkow asked, “why would we expect children to take these risks to protect adults?”

There are more than 900 types of adverse events reported after Pfizer vaccination that have never been reported after flu vaccines, including 11 cases of multisystem-inflammatory syndrome (MS-C) that occurred without previous history of COVID infection, Guetzkow said.

He added that if the panel was considering authorizing Pfizer’s COVID vaccine to prevent MS-C — as Pfizer’s application suggested as one of the reasons they should — the panel should reconsider.

During another part of the meeting, Julia Barnes-Weise, director of the Global Healthcare Innovation Alliance Accelerator, said pharmaceutical companies have concerns.

“One of them is, especially for a not-yet-approved vaccine, that they could be held liable for any injury that that vaccine seems to have caused,” Barnes-Weise said.

In a preliminary analysis last week, FDA reviewers said protection would “clearly outweigh” the risk of a very rare side effect in almost all scenarios of the pandemic, PBS News Hour reported.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) said yesterday it would take legal action against the FDA if it granted EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for children 5- to 11- years old.

In a letter signed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CHD chairman and chief legal counsel, and Nass, Kennedy and Nass wrote:

“CHD will seek to hold you accountable for recklessly endangering this population with a product that has little efficacy but which may put them, without warning, at risk of many adverse health consequences, including heart damage, stroke, and other thrombotic events and reproductive harms.”

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

© 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

October 26, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | 2 Comments

Why did it take an old story about horrific dog experiments to convince people it’s time to arrest Fauci?

By Helen Buyniski | RT | October 26, 2021

The rediscovery of a series of grisly experiments on beagle puppies has galvanized social media users into demanding the arrest of “America’s doctor” Anthony Fauci. But where was everyone when his work was harming humans?

Images of a sad pair of beagle puppies, their heads encased in square cages as they lie hopelessly on a table, have yanked at America’s heartstrings since they were shoved back into the national spotlight by White Coat Waste Project, a group that calls out US government labs for animal cruelty and other misuse (and abuse) of citizens’ money.

Millions of taxpayer dollars were used to essentially torture the puppies to death in labs in and out of the US, according to the organization, which unearthed evidence of the cruelty in the form of over $21 million spent on a total of four experiments – none of which was medically necessary. One involved severing 44 puppies’ vocal cords so that their pained barking and whining wouldn’t bother the scientists; another deliberately infected them with sand flies over the course of 22 months, restricting their movements by locking their heads in boxes so that they could not even swat the insects away as they were being eaten alive.

It’s horrific stuff by any measure, beyond cartoonish levels of evil. Indeed, even Texas Senator Ted Cruz (R) claimed he thought the tweets he’d read about Fauci “literally ‘torturing puppies’” had to be “metaphorical.”

But while the outrage is justified, it’s also old news. One could ask why the masses have turned against Fauci only now, when his National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases has been funding the torture of puppies for years, with one of the horrific experiments dating from 2016. The most recent grant dated from 2020, meaning Fauci’s agency was vivisecting helpless furry animals at the University of Georgia even while he was being worshiped as America’s Doctor™ and posing for photos with other people’s dogs.

Even White Coat Waste Project refers to its own revelations as “Fauci’s other international scandal,” implying knowledge of a better-known episode in the fame-hungry doctor’s life.

One must ask why the popular outrage against Fauci over animal cruelty is not matched by an equal (if not more forceful) outrage over the doctor’s crimes against humanity. From his enthusiastic support of gain-of-function studies to his efforts to sideline a cheap, effective drug that could have saved thousands of lives during the AIDS epidemic in favor of a highly toxic alternative, Fauci’s hands are covered in the blood of humans as well as that of canines.

Indeed, Fauci’s behavior during the Covid-19 outbreak – trashing cheap but effective treatments in favor of expensive alternatives lacking proof of efficacy – eerily mirrors his actions during the early years of AIDS. Thousands of people have died in both cases after Fauci pushed deadly or ineffective medications – most notably the failed cancer drug AZT in the 1980s and the failed Ebola drug remdesivir in the last two years – while safer and more efficacious remedies sat on the shelf.

Indeed, the high-priced antiviral remdesivir, which has been pushed for Covid-19 despite no clinical proof it saves lives, has instead been associated with multiple organ failure in several studies.

Discoveries that members of the National Institutes of Health, parent of Fauci’s NIAID, had hefty investments in Gilead, maker of remdesivir, as well as in Moderna, one of the manufacturers of an mRNA vaccine for Covid-19, have only raised more questions about Fauci’s motives during the coronavirus pandemic.

Fauci has also been caught lying repeatedly about his involvement in gain-of-function research aimed at making bat coronaviruses more infectious in humans. Despite his profuse denials of even funding such research in recent months, he previously defended the work by arguing that any knowledge gained from bolstering the infectious potential of such pathogens was “worth the risk” of unleashing a pandemic. Whether or not his NIAID-funded research played a part in the Covid-19 outbreak has not been proven, but Fauci’s furious tap-dancing around any questions regarding the Wuhan lab or gain-of-function research in general does him no favors.

Yet, somehow, none of this elicits anything like the howls of rage coming from dog-lovers on social media. The same outrage-on-demand contingent who demand countries like China and Vietnam stop eating dog meat, signing a petition with one hand while biting into a well-done burger with the other, insist on the closure of “barbaric” wet markets like the one we were told spawned the novel coronavirus in late 2019. This group’s problem is less animal cruelty than being reminded of that cruelty. They’d rather wait until their meat is shrink-wrapped and frozen in a supermarket than pick out the tastiest-looking chicken in the bunch and have it slaughtered then and there.

Ultimately, Fauci being arrested is an endpoint that animal rights activists, human rights activists, and the normally comatose members of Congress – 24 of whom actually signed a letter demanding answers from the once-untouchable Coronavirus Pope – should see eye-to-eye on. But the diminutive doctor must not be permitted to skate on his real crimes – whether it’s pandemic profiteering, bankrolling gain-of-function research in China that was at the time illegal to perform in the US, or allegedly perjuring himself in congressional testimony. Fauci has much to answer for. Dozens of dead puppies are just the tip of the iceberg.

Unfortunately, like other gleeful architects of the Covid-19 police state who’ve been caught in the midst of scandal – former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, for example – arresting Fauci on the basis of popular rage over dead puppies is likely to close the book on further prosecution, no matter how heinous his “real” crimes.

Just as Cuomo is unlikely to ever be held to account for the thousands of elderly New Yorkers who died because of his nursing-home order to house Covid-positive patients with the helpless elderly, Fauci will be permitted to enjoy his retirement – and big fat pension – in peace. Americans who have lost everything to his mismanagement of the Covid-19 pandemic must not let that happen.

Helen Buyniski is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Telegram

October 26, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , , | 2 Comments

Vaccine Safety Update #15

The Daily Sceptic | October 25, 2021

This is the 15th of the round-ups of Covid vaccine safety reports and news compiled by a group of medical doctors who are monitoring developments but prefer to remain anonymous in the current climate (find the 14th one here).

By no means is this part of an effort to generate alarm about the vaccines or dissuade anyone from getting inoculated. It should be read in conjunction with the Daily Sceptic‘s other posts on vaccines, which include both encouraging and not so encouraging developments. At the Daily Sceptic we report all the news about the vaccines whether positive or negative and give no one advice about whether they should or should not take them. Unlike with lockdowns, we are neither pro-vaccine nor anti-vaccine; we see our job as reporting the facts, not advocating for or against a particular policy. The vaccine technology is novel and the vaccines have not yet fully completed their trials, which is why they’re in use under temporary and not full market authorisation. This has been done on account of the emergency situation and the trial data was largely encouraging on both efficacy and safety. For a summary of that data, see this preamble to the Government’s page on the Yellow Card reporting system. (Dr Tess Lawrie in June wrote an open letter to Dr June Raine, head of the MHRA, arguing that: “The MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans,” a claim that has been ‘fact checked’ here.) Boris Johnson has now said that the vaccine “doesn’t protect you against catching the disease, and it doesn’t protect you against passing it on”. We publish information and opinion to inform public debate and help readers reach their own conclusions about what is best for them, based on the available data.

  • The U.S. CDC has set up a monitoring system for reporting COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough cases – as of October 18th 2021 there have been 41,127 breakthrough cases reported, 10,857 of whom died.
  • Dr Scott McLachlan reports an excessive number of healthy babies born to mothers who’ve had the vaccine during pregnancy dying within 48-72 hours of birth.
  • The latest U.K. Covid figures by vaccination status, up to week 41 (17th October), report higher cases of Covid per 100,000 people in double-vaccinated than unvaccinated.
  • Sweden has suspended the Moderna jab indefinitely after vaccinated patients developed myocarditis, whilst a case of Pfizer vaccine-associated-myocarditis is reported as the cause of death in a 22 year old man in Korea.
  • VAERS – the American version of the Yellow Card reporting system – released new data on October 15th bringing the total to 818.044 reports of adverse events following Covid vaccines, including 17,128 deaths and 122,833 serious injuries.
  • DAEN Australia – the equivalent of the Yellow Card reporting system – has logged (up to October 10th) 67,063 reports of adverse events, including 589 deaths. Australia has recorded 1,432 Covid deaths to date.
  • Children (Under 18) Adverse Events U.K. – up to October 13th, MHRA report a total of 1,297 adverse event reports, comprising 1,056 Pfizer, 233 AstraZeneca, 5 Moderna and 3 unspecified. Myocarditis reports remain 10 in a million for this age group. No information is provided on fatalities.

Summary of Adverse Events in the U.K.

According to an updated report published on October 21st, the MHRA Yellow Card reporting system has recorded a total of 1,236,485 events based on 375,493 reports. The total number of fatalities reported is 1,715.

  • Pfizer (22.9 million first doses, 19.9 million second doses) now has one Yellow Card in 187 people vaccinated. Deaths: 1 in 40,603 people vaccinated (564).
  • AstraZeneca (24.9 million first doses, 24.1 million second doses) has one Yellow Card in 106 people vaccinated. Deaths: 1 in 22,616 people vaccinated (1,101).
  • Moderna (1.5 million first doses, 1.2 million second doses) has one Yellow Card in 89 people vaccinated. Deaths: 1 in 78,947 people vaccinated (19).

Overall, one in every 131 people vaccinated (0.76%) have experienced a Yellow Card adverse event. The MHRA has previously estimated that the Yellow Card reporting rate may be approximately 10% of actual figures.

  • Thrombosis & Embolism (all types) = 7,105
  • Anaphylaxis = 1,367
  • Acute Cardiac = 16,299
  • Pericarditis/Myocarditis (Heart inflammation) = 4,342
  • Headaches & Migraines = 123,251
  • Blindness = 427
  • Deafness = 608
  • Spontaneous Abortions = 603 miscarriages + 13 foetal deaths/stillbirths
  • Facial Paralysis incl. Bell’s Palsy = 1,769
  • Strokes and CNS haemorrhages = 2,677
  • Guillain-Barré Syndrome = 500
  • Pulmonary Embolism & Deep Vein Thrombosis = 3,510
  • Seizures = 2,888
  • Paralysis = 1,181
  • Tinnitus/Vertigo – 3,066 (Pfizer) + 6,584 (AZ) + 323 (Moderna) + 26 (Unknown) = 9,999
  • Tremor = 11,502
  • Nosebleeds = 3,135
  • Dizziness = 35,704
  • Vomiting = 15,892
  • Reproductive/Breast Disorders – = 44,548

Further analysis can be found via the U.K. Freedom Project.

Source: PfizerModernaAstraZenecaUnspecified. “F” denotes fatal.

October 26, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

European Youth Deaths Rise Sharply – And Nobody Dare Ask Why

The mortality stats are truly disturbing

A child receives a second dose of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine during a clinical trial earlier this year.

By Chris Waldburger | October 25, 2021

There was no pandemic for European citizens younger than 45 in 2020.

The mortality data from the very reputable and reliable Euromomo, the European mortality monitoring site, is unequivocal:

There is no variation from the prior years for mortality for young people.

The same is not true for older Europeans – although mortality compared to prior virus season/winters is not as high as you would expect:

As I have written before, it is far from certain this excess mortality is only due to covid.

To quote the most haunting covid piece of writing:

It wouldn’t take much to push a population of such elderly and frail people into a life-threatening situation. Lock them up for months on end. Deny them human contact on pain of arrest and fines they couldn’t hope to pay. Withdraw medical treatment. Quarantine their carers. Terrorise them with propaganda about a civilisation-ending disease. Order them to stay at home and avoid the contact of other people like the plague. Tell them hospitals standing empty are on the verge of being overwhelmed. Turn medical centres into places to fear, the breeding grounds of a deadly new disease. That should be more than enough. It has been more than enough.

To preserve the elderly, the world has used the young – who suffered no pandemic – as a shield.

The young have lost their jobs, their childhoods, their right to breathe air freely, their right to say no to experimental medicine they do not need.

And now they appear to be dying for the elderly too:

Please can somebody explain why deaths are rising so steeply in European youth?

They did not suffer from historically excess death in the middle of the pandemic.

Why are they dying now?

And it is not only them – US young people are suffering the same fate:

What changed?

Are these deaths of despair? Myocarditis?

More importantly, why does nobody care?

Do only the elderly rich count?

October 26, 2021 Posted by | War Crimes | , | 8 Comments

RT to continue legal battle after UK Court of Appeal backs Ofcom’s £200,000 fine against broadcaster

RT | October 26, 2021

RT says it’s going to challenge a ruling by the Court of Appeal in London, which decided that the six-figure fine imposed by British broadcast regulator Ofcom for an alleged breach of impartiality rules was “proportionate.”

The Court of Appeal announced its decision on Tuesday, saying that the High Court of Justice was right to rule that the enforcement action taken by Ofcom against RT was “necessary in a democratic society” in order to protect the public. It added that the action taken was “proportionate.”

RT’s deputy editor-in-chief, Anna Belkina, reacted to the development by announcing that the broadcaster is planning to appeal the decision.

“We… firmly believe that both Ofcom’s code and the law have been misapplied,” she insisted. “We shall continue the fight to protect the validity of diverse views in media discourse.”

The British broadcast regulator imposed a huge fine of £200,000 ($276,000) on RT in July 2019 after saying earlier that it found seven instances of failure to adhere to the country’s impartiality rules.

The alleged violations occurred during coverage of such controversial issues as the suspected poisoning of double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury in 2018, as well as the role played by the US in the conflict in Syria, according to Ofcom. The regulator initiated most of the probes on its own, without receiving complaints from viewers.

RT has rejected the allegations of breaching impartiality rules and went to court to appeal against the regulator’s sanctions. It also insisted that the fine seemed “particularly inappropriate and disproportionate per Ofcom’s own track record,” pointing to instances in which cases of hate speech and incitement to violence resulted in much lower financial penalties.

October 26, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Crop Failures & The “Climate Disaster”

By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | October 26, 2021

We looked at this phony Guardian report the other day:


One section deals with what it calls crop failure:


It claims that once-a-decade droughts are becoming more frequent, in comparison with 1850-1900! This apparently comes from the IPCC, but who was counting droughts in the 19thC?

As with disaster databases, it is only in recent years that organisations have been set up to monitor humanitarian crises and provide aid. A hundred years ago, there was no internet, television or mobile phones to relay the news.

A famine in Madagascar would simply have happened without being noticed.

The Guardian then goes on to “prove” its point, by cherry picking droughts in Guatemala and Zambia, as if they had never happened before. They are not even in the same year!


The dip in agricultural production in Guatemala is evident in 2017, but the trend for both countries is remorselessly up.


If there was any truth in the Guardian’s apocalyptic version of events, we would see global food production staggering from one crisis to another.

But we don’t.


The Guardian reckons that India and Pakistan will be particularly badly hit by crop failures, even in this decade:


But this goes totally opposite to what is actually happening there.


And long term monsoon trends clearly show that droughts are not becoming more severe or common in India, global warming or not. Most droughts are, in fact, associated with El Ninos, and not climate change:

October 26, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | 2 Comments

Joanna Lumley Suggests Wartime Rationing Could Solve Climate Crisis

By Richie Allen | October 26, 2021

Joanna Lumley has said that a return to rationing could help solve the climate crisis. The 75 year-old actress said that eating meat and travelling could be rationed to save the planet.

Speaking to Radio Times Lumley said:

“These are tough times and I think there’s got to be legislation. That was how the war was and at some stage we might even have to go back to some kind of rationing, where you’re given a certain number of points and it’s up to you how to spend them – whether it’s buying a bottle of whisky or flying in an aeroplane.”

She said that people could be compelled to cut back on weekend breaks abroad and to move to a plant based diet:

“Perhaps people have got to think a bit harder. Maybe more of our holidays should be at home or taking trains, and not hopping on a plane to Magaluf for the weekend.

I don’t get ill because I’m vegetarian. I still have plenty of energy. I am absolutely fine, I gave up meat 45 years ago.”

When you frame any problem, whether real or imagined as a war, you can justify almost anything right? Remember all that “workers on the front line” nonsense at the beginning of the scamdemic? Remember “the war on covid?”

Didn’t I say last year, that climate lockdowns would be a thing? I said that Sunday driving would be rationed as well as certain foods. This will tie in with the social credit system of course.

Not reducing your meat consumption, your travel, your overall carbon footprint ultimately, will eventually be seen as treachery.

Things are moving very quickly now.

October 26, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science | | 1 Comment

FDA Pretends it Cares–but leaves out the most important information

By Meryl Nass, MD | October 25, 2021

PHARMACOVIGILANCE:  the practice of monitoring the effects of medical drugs after they have been licensed for use, especially in order to identify and evaluate previously unreported adverse reactions.

Pages 34-35 of the FDA review of Pfizer’s data for the 5-11 year olds provides the pretense of truly caring about identifying and quantifying adverse events from the vaccine. Just look at all the “activities” Pfizer and its partner must do. Well, of course they have to do them, since their clinical trial was so underpowered (not enough subjects) and only ran 2 months for about half the kids and 2.5 weeks for the rest. Duh?

Not only that, but Pfizer presented its data to FDA on October 6, and FDA already had completed its review and written its 39 page report by October 23, 17 days later. Fast work.  But then again, we are only talking about the health of 28 million elementary school kids. And millions more overseas whose countries follow FDA advice.

And lest I forget, we are also talking about their education, because it seems they won’t be able to attend school soon, if unjabbed. Gavin Newsome said so.  And a bill is being introduced in the District of Columbia for the same purpose.

Clearly, the stakes are pretty low, so a pretend Pfizer clinical trial and a pretend FDA review are good enough, right?

Below is part of FDA’s presentation. What is missing is the most important information, revealed in an Aug 23 letter from FDA.  And that is, that the trials FDA demands Pfizer undertake to find out how dangerous its vaccines actually are, will not be reported to FDA until 2024 and 2025–presumably after most of the world’s children have already received 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 doses.


Pfizer submitted a revised Pharmacovigilance Plan (PVP) to monitor safety concerns that could be associated with BNT162b2 in individuals 5-11 years of age. The PVP includes the following safety concerns:

• Important Identified Risks: anaphylaxis, myocarditis, and pericarditis

• Important Potential Risks: Vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED), including vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease (VAERD).

Pfizer-BioNTech plans to conduct passive and active surveillance to monitor the postauthorization safety for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, including: 35

• Mandatory reporting by the Sponsor under the EUA for the following events to VAERS within 15 days: SAEs (irrespective of attribution to vaccination); COVID-19 disease resulting in hospitalization or death; multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS)

• Adverse event reporting in accordance with regulatory requirements for the licensed vaccine, COMIRNATY

• Additionally, following approval of COMIRNATY, the Sponsor was also asked to submit reports of myocarditis and pericarditis as 15-day reports to VAERS.

• Periodic safety reports containing an aggregate review of safety data including assessment of AEs; vaccine administration errors, whether or not associated with an AE; and newly identified safety concerns.

• Post-authorization observational studies, that would be modified to encompass the evaluation of children 5-11 years of age include active surveillance safety studies using large health insurance claims and/or electronic health record database(s):

– Study C4591009: A non-interventional post-approval safety study of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine in the United States

Objective: To assess the occurrence of safety events of interest, including myocarditis and pericarditis, in the general U.S. population of all ages, pregnant women, the immunocompromised, and persons with a prior history of COVID-19 within selected data sources participating in the U.S. Sentinel System.

– Study C4591021: Post-conditional approval active surveillance study among individuals in Europe receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine

Objective: To assess the potential increased risk of AESIs, including myocarditis/pericarditis, after being vaccinated with at least one dose of the PfizerBioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.

– Study C4591021 Substudy: Substudy to describe the natural history of myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of COMIRNATY

Objective: To describe the natural history of post-vaccination myocarditis/pericarditis, including recovery status, risk factors, and/or identification of serious cardiovascular outcomes within one year of myocarditis/pericarditis diagnosis among individuals vaccinated with BNT162b2 as well as individuals not vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine.

– Study C4591036: Prospective cohort study with at least 5 years of follow-up for potential long-term sequelae of myocarditis after vaccination (in collaboration with Pediatric Heart Network [PHN]). Working title: Myocarditis/pericarditis follow-up study within the Pediatric Heart Network

Objective: To characterize the clinical course, risk factors, resolution, long-term sequelae, and quality of life in children and young adults <21 years with acute postvaccine myocarditis/pericarditis. Pfizer-BioNTech also plans to include vaccine effectiveness analyses among individuals 5-11 years of age in Study C4591014 entitled “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 BNT162b2 Vaccine Effectiveness Study Kaiser Permanente Southern California.”

October 26, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Eight wise doctors and a glimmer of hope on Covid

By Neville Hodgkinson | TCW Defending Freedom | October 25, 2021

In a nutshell, they say:

1.    We cannot vaccinate ourselves out of the Covid problem. Mass vaccination is forcing the virus to produce variants, which escape any protection provided by the jab (see here for a report covering 68 countries). Instead, the vaccine should be offered only to those most vulnerable, such as the very elderly.

2.    It is especially wrong to give it to children. They are at almost zero risk from Covid but subject to a real risk of damage from this particular vaccine, unrecognised during its development.

3.    Cheap and effective treatment is available which keeps the vast majority of patients out of hospital. Health officials and regulators should support doctors who want to use these treatments, and to educate patients in how to strengthen their responses to the virus.*

4.    Lockdowns and official fear-inducing propaganda have blighted the lives of millions, especially children, and must never be repeated.

The discussion is a must view for concerned individuals. It offers a completely different perspective from that of the NHS chiefs now calling for booster jabs and the return of Covid restrictions.

These edited contributions give a flavour of the discussion:

Dr Robert Malone, key architect of the mRNA technology that made possible the most commonly used Covid vaccines: ‘The virus is evolving very rapidly. This is akin to what happens if you overuse antibiotics.  With universal vaccination, we’re driving towards an endpoint of vaccine-resistant mutants.  The vaccines need to be used intelligently.

‘This set of vaccines that we have right now are gene therapy-based, and they have a common problem: they only have one antigen. It’s the spike antigen. When they were developing them, they didn’t realise the spike was biologically active. No fault of theirs. Everybody was in a rush.

‘But now it’s time to take a breath and say, “Hey, does this really make sense?” We don’t have to be just Left or Right, pro- or anti-vaccine. There’s a middle ground. We, as a community, need to protect people at high risk, not just here in our community, in our states; in my opinion, we need to protect the elders throughout the world. We don’t need to hoard all the vaccine for people that don’t really need it.

‘I’m not an anti-vaxxer, I’m a guy who’s spent the majority of my adult life developing vaccines. This is a technology platform that has enormous promise. And right now it’s in its infancy. The safety of the underlying technology is not yet fully demonstrated.

‘People did what they did in good faith and focused on a protein that they thought was fully safe – spike. But now, over a year later, we know that in the virus, this protein is responsible for much of the disease – the pathology in your vascular endothelial cells [blood vessel linings], the coagulation. And it’s unfortunate that this particular protein, in what appears to be a biologically active form, was used in these vaccines.’

Dr Richard Urso, ophthalmologist, Texas: ‘When people say, “They died of Covid”, they died of an inflammatory, thrombotic disease.  They didn’t die from the virus running through their body. There’s a bunch of drugs that can be used for the purpose of inflammation in this disease. There’s a bunch of drugs for thrombosis. Hopefully at some point we’ll have a really good, early treatment that’s directed to the virus itself. Right now we have other, very effective treatments.

‘About 330 children have died of Covid in a year and a half [under-19s in the US]. Typically, about 50,000 children a year die – many from drownings, from car accidents. You need to look at that as you look at the risk to children. And do they spread? – No, at least seven different studies show that children spreading to adults is close to zero.’

Dr Brian Tyson, family doctor, Californiawho has successfully treated more than 6,000 Covid patients and now finds children are getting sick from typical winter illnesses, rather than Covid: ‘With treatment started from day 1 to 7, I have had zero deaths.  From treatment started from day 7 to 14, I have four – two died the same day they showed up at the clinic, and two died in hospital.

‘Under that data Dr Urso was talking about, not one healthy child died from Covid-19. It was children who had four or five risk factors – morbid obesity being number one, diabetes number two, weakened immune system number three; kids on chemotherapy and things like that. So yes, they’re going to have opportunistic infections, but that’s no different than would normally take out these kids anyway, unfortunately.’

Dr Heather Gessling, family doctor, Missouri: ‘My numbers exactly match up with Brian’s. I’ve treated about 1,500 and I’ve had one death, because there was some delay in treatment.’

Dr Mark McDonald, child psychiatrist, Los Angeles: ‘Fear has been the driving force of this pandemic from the very beginning.  What’s driving the fear now is propaganda. I see kids all day long. The developmental stage that children need to go through – babies, toddlers, young adults – is being foreclosed on them.

‘Brown University department of paediatrics published a study that found babies born after January 1, 2020, have an IQ drop of 20 points. Why? They don’t see faces. They don’t play. They don’t have exposure to friends. They don’t go to school. They’re basically locked in their homes, looking at their parents for a year and a half. And their brains have not developed.

‘My concern is that we are building a generation of young people who are so traumatised that they will never fully recover. They’re always going to be scarred emotionally.

‘I don’t mean to be depressing. I mean to be alarming, so everyone can finally say, “Stop!”  We’ve got to stop the damage, and then figure out what to do about it.’

Dr Gessling: ‘I think “Stop the damage!” means to acknowledge what we have done wrong. We should reverse all the measures that have been implemented. Patients, families, parents, should take it upon themselves to feel empowered. We need to get back to the basics, because we’ve done this wrong for so long.

‘One of the books we all had in medical school was Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine. This is what we have forgotten: “Many specific host factors influence the likelihood of acquiring an infectious disease: age, immunisation history, prior illnesses, level of nutrition, pregnancy status, coexisting illnesses and perhaps emotional state – all have some impact on the risk of infection after exposure to a potential pathogen.”  All we have done is focus on one of those: immunisation history.

‘The ability to provide early, effective treatment should make us feel empowered.  We should not feel afraid any more.’

Dr Pierre Kory, pulmonary and critical care specialist; founding member and president, the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance; co-author of two Covid prevention and treatment protocols: ‘My hopes are that more and more attention is going to be paid to early treatment strategies, especially now the vaccinated are getting sick. Many people were led to believe that if you get your vaccine, we’re going to end this thing, you don’t have to worry about it, you can carry on with your lives.

‘But guess what? My colleagues are talking about even scarier variants that are coming. And so we need more tools to fight this.  The positive message is, we have them, and they can handle any variant that comes at us. We just need to get that message out. I don’t believe anybody has died who’s had effective early treatment.’

Dr John Littell, family doctor, Florida: ‘What we’re seeing now is that patients are getting early treatment with ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and a host of other medications, because of this free exchange of ideas in this group of physicians and others around the world.

‘Dr Tyson, Dr Gessling and myself are family physicians, OK? So we’re the folks who have been in those front lines getting the phone calls in the middle of the night from concerned parents.  And what you’ve just heard from Dr Kory and from us is that is that if you take the right preventive treatment, you’re approaching zero per cent mortality.’

Dr Kory: ‘If we have effective treatments, why aren’t they being recognised and disseminated across the world?  I think we’re up against two forces.

‘The first is that in general, our health agencies are suffering what’s called regulatory capture. They’re largely driven by financial interests that are making sure that the solution to the pandemic is one that is profitable. Vaccines are profitable.

‘The other, somewhat overlapping challenge is that in academia, in the last ten years, there’s been this increasing belief that the only proof of efficacy of a drug has to come out of a large, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. You have to make the diagnosis – everyone has to have a positive test; they have to have symptoms; they have to be enrolled, consented, randomised, and then the drug is delivered. Each one of those steps takes time. So it’s often very delayed, and under-dosed – they’re using doses that I was using six months ago.’

Dr Ryan Cole, medical director, Cole Diagnostics, Idaho, who has done more than 100,000 Covid tests in the past year: ‘Covid is a clotting disease. When we give a spike protein [through the vaccine], that is an active biologic molecule. We chose the wrong molecule, which causes disease.

‘So what do I see under the microscope? We see clotting under the skin, in the lungs, in the blood vessels, in the brain – not from the virus, but from the spike from the vaccine itself.

‘Now consider the numerator and the denominator.  Are most people going to be fine? Yes. And I want to emphasise that.

‘[But] in our data from around the world, from the United States, from the UK, from EudraVigilance in Europe, we have seen more death and damage from this one medical product than all other vaccines combined in the last several decades, in just a short, eight-month window of time. It has done more damage than any other medical product, therapy, shot, modality, of anything we’ve ever allowed to stay on the market to this point.

‘Do I mean to sound alarmist? No, I’m being factual. And when I look at it under the microscope and I see the parts of people – or people that are no longer with us – the damage and the disease is caused by that spike protein. It is present.

‘A virus is a humanitarian issue. When we divide ourselves in thought and don’t listen to science any more, we’re going down the wrong paths.

‘We are forgetting what our amazing immune system does. How many of you had chickenpox when you were a kid? And how many of you have ever had it again? Did you need a shot? No. Grandma had measles – has grandma ever had it again? No, because her immune system works.

‘Half of kids in the US have already had Covid. We’re not antibody testing – we’re treating everybody with this terrible oppression of, “You’ve got to wear a mask . . . you’ve got to stay home if somebody in your classroom tests positive.” It denies basic science.

‘Under age 50 with no co-morbidities, your chances of dying from this disease are about nil, and if you get early treatment they are even closer to nil. So if you are a Covid recoverer, you don’t need a shot.

‘The shot can damage the hearts of children. There are more children who’ve had myocarditis – and there’s never such a thing as mild myocarditis. That’s inflammation of the heart. Once you get inflammation, you get scarring. Those kids’ hearts are damaged for life. Kids have died of heart attacks after the shot, and there are more kids that have had myocarditis than have died from Covid. Kids aged zero to 18 survive this virus at a statistical 100 per cent – 99.997 per cent. So why are we punishing kids for a virus they survive?’

*For up-to-date guides to home treatment of Covid, see here and here.

October 26, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | 1 Comment