Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Vaccines Cannot Do What Is Asked of Them

eugyppius | November 1, 2021

Increasingly, politicians and medical bureaucrats are entranced by a bizarre pandemic ideology. Like most ideologies, it remains oblivious to evidence and argument, holding that the risk of severe outcomes from Corona infection is far more evenly distributed across the population than it is; and allowing only universal solutions, such as quarantining and vaccinating entire populations. These obtuse views, which just won’t go away, are at the root of our failed and destructive policies. For 20 months now, this pandemic ideology has blinded everyone in charge to the possibility of shielding the vulnerable, leveraging seasonal patterns in infection, and leaving the kids alone. The stratified nature of Corona risk is the key to unravelling the pandemic, and it’s the one thing nobody will recognise.

Success in the pandemic has come to be defined by a series of vague, poorly differentiated statistics, including above all Corona infections, hospitalisations and deaths, and now vaccination rates. In their exclusive focus on these numbers, the press propagate constantly the myth that this is all there is to know about Corona. This impoverished discussion drives bureaucrats and politicians to seek solutions for one vague meaningless metric (Corona ICU admissions) in another vague meaningless metric (vaccination rates). In this way their policies are constructed in a rhetorical world that has very little to do with what is actually happening.


Every day our understanding of what the vaccines can do becomes clearer. It’s not nothing, but it’s much less than we were promised.

Some of our best evidence so far comes from this Swedish retrospective cohort study, which tracks outcomes in 1,684,958 individuals (matched vaccinated and unvaccinated pairs) from 12 January to 4 October 2021. It has been around the block, with an especially good analysis by El Gato Malo, so there’s no point in anything more than a brief review here.

Above all, they find that the vaccines provide temporary protection against infection:

Unfortunately, this protection likely falls below zero – into the zone of negative efficacy – after 7 to 9 months. This is one of multiple lines of evidence confirming that the vaccinated, sooner or later, achieve higher rates of infection than the unvaccinated. According to me, even early vaccine efficacy is likely overstated in studies like these. Probably the vaccinated are always highly vulnerable to infection, but they’re not tested as rigorously and at first their symptoms are so mild as to be nearly unnoticeable. SARS-2 nevertheless lurks among them, mostly undetected, until vaccine protection against overt disease dissipates.

This would explain what happened in Iceland over the summer: A bunch of freshly vaccinated Icelanders went on holiday in the UK, where they promptly picked up SARS-2 and brought the latest Delta update back home with them. In the following weeks, energetic Icelandic testing uncovered rates of infection almost as high in the vaccinated as in the unvaccinated – and this well before we would’ve expected the vaccines to have faded.

The Swedish study finds that efficacy against severe disease last longer, but also decays substantially in much the same way:

After the 240-day mark, protection against severe outcome is not even at 30%. The decay is most rapid among men, the old and frail, and those with comorbidities – precisely those subpopulations already at greatest risk of severe disease.

So those are the benefits, but as in everything there are also costs – and here they turn out to be substantial.

We’ve already touched on one: The vaccines appear to induce negative efficacy against infection. This probably arises from a combination of minimally symptomatic super-spreading among the vaccinated, the selective pressure that vaccine-elicited antibodies place upon the virus, and the narrow immunity against an obsolete arrangement of the spike protein that the vaccines confer. For a period of several weeks after dose 1 (and likely dose 3), they also make the vaccinated more susceptible to infection, and mass vaccination campaigns have induced case spikes across many countries.

By now it is also clear that the vaccines cause a range of adverse reactions. The best documented is myocarditis in young men, a side effect observed most frequently after dose 2 of the mRNA vaccines. We probably won’t know the true rate of vaccine-induced myocarditis for many years. From excess mortality in younger cohorts and many anecdotal media reports, we can surmise that it is much more common than anybody will admit.


It does not take a Ph.D. in public health to extract a sensible vaccination policy from all this:

1. There is just no question that vaccinating low-risk cohorts (including the recovered) is not only pointless, but also dangerous. These aren’t the people who end up in the hospital dying of Corona anyway. And because the vaccinated sooner or later end up driving transmission, there is only downside and no upside here.

2. All the vaccines are good for, is reducing the likelihood of severe disease among the old and the vulnerable. It follows that only the old and the vulnerable should be vaccinated.

3. In these groups, carefully timed annual vaccinations, like flu shots, might well provide good protection at the height of the winter coronavirus season and limit mortality. Even here, though, you’d have to proceed carefully, to avoid causing case spikes in the newly vaccinated during that brief period where their vulnerability to infection is heightened.

Of course, this is the opposite of what our pandemic ideology permits. Instead, almost all of our governments deploy the vaccines in the most reckless and counterproductive ways possible.

The southern districts of Bavaria are quickly becoming the regions of highest infection in Germany, and Markus Söder, our governor, is demanding a renewed “vaccine push,” including a campaign for booster doses “independently of age,” even obliquely threatening lockdown if we can’t ensure the “safety and stability” of hospitals.

These are exactly the kinds of crackpot universalist solutions that have failed for the past twenty months, and that will do nothing to unburden our healthcare facilities, and very likely end up swamping them with unnecessary patients.

If booster doses are a good idea for anyone – and it’s far from clear they are – it’s frail nursing home residents, most of whose vaccinations are now well past their expiration date, and who are once again beginning to die of SARS-2 just as they did last fall. Vaccinating children and triple vaccinating low-risk adults won’t prevent nursing home deaths, and it will do very little to keep our hospitals “safe,” because the vaccines don’t reduce spread and these people rarely end up in hospital. What is worse, ever newer pushes to vaccinate all hospital personnel and nursing home staff threaten to introduce vaccinated super-spreaders into these sensitive environments. Söder will continue to pound the table demanding ever harsher restrictions for the unvaccinated and more vaccine doses for the already-vaccinated, all while deaths and hospitalisations continue to climb.

Ultimately, the great problem with our vaccine policies, as with our lockdowns, arises from the fact that they don’t work. Because lockdowns and vaccination campaigns are powerless to remove the conditions that brought them about, you can never stop locking down, and you can never stop vaccinating – even as your policies turn out to do worse than nothing.

November 2, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | 1 Comment

Has Government Gone Too Far Down the Vaccine-Saviour Road to Be Capable of Objective Assessment of the Evidence?

By Will Jones  • The Daily Sceptic • October 31, 2021

In my previous articles I have highlighted how the Government and most of the media are concealing certain facts, altering previously established protocols or manipulating data that has the effect of deceiving the public. I try not to dwell on why. Whatever the reason there is something that needs to be addressed.

Every form of medical treatment has an element of risk and any new development in healthcare is to some degree experimental. Time will and does tell how successful and how risky a particular form of therapy is. The Covid vaccination strategy would be no different in that respect. Yet Government and media have, in their headlong, panic-stricken way resisted all attempts of cautious, sceptical and truly ethical scientific scrutiny. They fail to recognise any form of experimentation, any increased risk profile associated with a novel medical procedure or how time and trialling (of which the public are those undergoing the trials) help establish the safety of a particular procedure.

All this in the day of ‘defensive medicine‘ – a term sometimes used to describe a way of preventing patients from successfully suing their practitioners. But defensive medicine or dentistry can also protect the public if used genuinely for that specific purpose. All you need to do is practise fully informed consent where you are honest with your patient and explain the pros and cons clearly and freely in a way that doesn’t help steer the patient into a decision that is biased, for example by scaring the patient into electing no treatment or falsely reassuring the patient into accepting it. All that has gone out of the window with Covid. Similar safeguards are required for customers of pension and mortgage providers and gambling platforms for example – ‘your capital is at risk’, ‘the value of your investment is at risk’ etc. All these things are done to prevent the harms and scandals that are in the history books.

So by abandoning the safeguards and principles that had successfully been established pre-Covid, what would happen if things turned out not to be what the patient (the majority of the public in this case) were led to believe? What if the treatment they underwent proved to be more harmful than beneficial? This may not be the case with respect to the Covid vaccine, but what if it was?

How could the Government, healthcare profession and media ever come round to admitting possible culpability? What temptation might there be for all these interested parties, who have acted almost in complete unison, to try and avoid the possibility of being exposed for any wrongdoing? They would have so much to lose. They would be disgraced. They would be (rightly) sued. They would lose all trust and credibility. Could such possible malpractice put too high a price on any form of compunction and admission? Have all parties gone down a road that has no exit? Might they never let a form of confession or admission of liability occur? And how?

There needs to be much more public discussion on these questions. It’s the only way in future to protect the public because we have to face the reality that it is time that will and does tell the truth.

November 2, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

Blood Clots Associated with Johnson & Johnson COVID Shot

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | November 2, 2021

Researchers at Mayo Clinic have published a study in JAMA showing that there is a 3.5 times higher risk of getting brain blood clots if you take the Astra Zeneca or Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 shots.

Reported incidents of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) after the jabs were what instigated a temporary pause in their rollout in April 2021. The researchers used data from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to compare to data compiled in a Minnesota county from 2001 to 2015.

Study authors said women appeared to be more affected than men, although they couldn’t ascertain why. “Most CVST events occurred within 15 days after vaccination, which is likely the highest at-risk period,” they added. ‘The postvaccination CVST rate among females was higher than the prepandemic rate among females. The highest risk was among women aged 30 to 49 years.”

November 2, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Is it Really True, as Climate Change Activists Claim, That 97% of Scientists Agree With Them?

By Luke Perry  • The Daily Sceptic • October 27, 2021

Our Government is imposing draconian limitations on our lifestyles, our economy and our finances in order to achieve net zero carbon emissions to supposedly save the planet from catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), now renamed as climate change. Probably one of the most repeated arguments you’ll hear, over and over again, in support of the need to achieve net zero is that “97% of scientists agree CAGW is happening”.

Former President Barack Obama is just one of many who have made this claim: “97% percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”

So did President Joe Biden’s Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, when he warned of the “crippling consequences” of climate change and that: “97% percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.”

This claim is widely accepted. Yet, in spite of the damaging effects reaching net zero will have on Western economies, not a single politician or journalist seems to have made the effort to find out where this ‘97%’ figure came from and how accurate it actually is.

Statistical smoke and mirrors?

The main author of the paper which came up with the famous 97% figure was an Australian former web programmer and blogger who later gained a PhD in Philosophy at the School of Psychology, University of Western Australia and then founded what could be seen as a climate alarmist website.

He assembled a group of volunteers as part of a ‘citizen science’ project and tasked them with”‘examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991-2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’”. Note that the volunteers didn’t read the actual scientific papers, they just looked at the abstracts – a summary paragraph or two describing what was in the papers. The volunteers then classed the abstracts into one of seven categories according to their opinions of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW):

1.           Explicit endorsement of AGW with quantification

2.           Explicit endorsement of AGW without quantification

3.           Implicit endorsement of AGW

4.           No position or Uncertain

5.           Implicit rejection of AGW

6.           Explicit rejection of AGW without quantification

7.           Explicit rejection of AGW with quantification

The reviewers then ‘simplified’ results into four main categories as follows:

Endorse AGW                    3,896                  32.6% of abstracts

No AGW position             7,930                  66.4% of abstracts

Reject AGW                       78                        0.7% of abstracts

Uncertain on AGW          40                        0.3% of abstracts

So, this gave only 32.6% who, the reviewers concluded, endorsed AGW. This was clearly not quite the stunning super-majority of 97% which the study claimed to have identified. Now comes the clever bit. Instead of admitting that just 32.6% of papers (actually just abstracts of papers) endorsed AGW, the group decided to remove all the 7,930 abstracts which didn’t take a position on AGW. Then, hey presto, magic happened. That left just 4,014 abstracts of which 3,896 (97%) supposedly ‘endorsed’ AGW.

But that’s not the end of the magic employed to reach that wondrous 97%. The reviewers decided to lump together three categories of abstracts – Explicit endorsement with quantification; Explicit endorsement without quantification and Implicit Endorsement. But in the paper claiming 97% support for AGW, the reviewers don’t tell us how many papers fitted into each of these three categories. An independent researcher managed to get hold of the original data file and claimed to have found that in 3,896 abstracts which supposedly ‘endorsed’ AGW, just 64 were in the Explicit endorsement with quantification category; 922 were in the Explicit endorsement without quantification; and the vast majority – 2,910 (out of 3,896) – were in the Implicit endorsement of AGW category. Deciding from an abstract of a scientific article that the article ‘implicitly’ supports AGW is a bit like walking down a high street and deciding you know how people will vote based purely on looking at the kind of clothes they wear. To propose this as a serious survey is beyond ludicrous.

Thus, if this independent researcher’s figures are accurate, when you dig down into how the ‘97% of scientists’ figure was actually conjured up, you find that only 986 of 11,944 – that’s just 8.2% – of abstracts actually explicitly said they agreed with the theory of man-made global warming. And that’s clearly not the kind of figure the apocalypse-threatening climate catastrophists would really want to publicise too widely.

So, this ‘97% of scientists’ claim is based on about 11 to 12 volunteers, whose scientific credentials have not (as far as I know) been released and all of whom were probably firm AGW believers, each having to look at around 1,000, often quite obtuse, scientific abstracts. During this review, they decided whether they thought the scientific papers (which they hadn’t read as they had only looked at the abstracts) explicitly or implicitly supported the AGW theory. To claim such an approach is statistically valid is beyond farcical. Given the damage reaching net zero will do to our economies and our lives, it is beyond incredible that not a single politician, mainstream-media journalist or editor seems to have had either the ability or the inclination to expose the more than dubious origins of the almost ubiquitous ‘97% of scientists endorse AGW’ claim.

November 2, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | 1 Comment

Tech investor Peter Thiel criticizes “Ministry of Truth” and creation of “fake consensus”

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | November 2, 2021

During the National Conservatism Conference, held on October 31, tech billionaire Peter Thiel warned against “centralized misinformation” because it creates a “fake consensus.”

Thiel asserted that the centralized misinformation problem is responsible for the silencing of debate on important issues such as inflation of the American economy, COVID-19, and the presence of US troops in Afghanistan.

In his speech, Thiel gave examples of what he described as the “incredible derangement of various forms of thought.” He referenced Stanford’s professor Jay Bhattacharya’s experience. Pictures of the professor were plastered all over the school because he spoke against masks.

He said: “When you have to call things science, you know they aren’t – like climate science or political science,” Epoch reported.

According to Thiel, such excessive dogmatism is the reason for the failed policies by the US government in Afghanistan for more than twenty years.

The PayPal co-founder went on to say that the US is currently experiencing a “runaway, non-transitory inflation” and the “complete bankruptcy of the Fed” because of the inability to tolerate differing ideas and opinions that are unpopular.

“If there’s a misinformation problem, it’s a centralized misinformation problem—and it’s the misinformation coming from the Ministry of Truth,” said Thiel.

November 2, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | 1 Comment

FDA approves Pfizer jab for kids, but even they don’t seem sure it’s safe

By Helen Buyniski | RT | November 1, 2021

American children have no choice but to act as experimental test subjects for the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine to determine the jab’s safety, the Food and Drug Administration has apparently concluded. Good luck, kids!

“We’re never going to learn about how safe the vaccine is unless we start giving it,” editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and Harvard adjunct professor Eric Rubin argued last week, his words buried within the eight-hour barrage of presentations and discussions that swirled around the FDA advisory panel’s approval of the mRNA jab for children aged five to 11.

The FDA followed up on the advisory panel’s 17-0 recommendation with approval, as it typically does, on Friday. If the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention follows suit, some 28 million American children will be quickly served up as fresh-faced fodder for a smaller dose of the Covid-19 vaccine already poised to inject some 100 million American adults. That is, as soon as President Joe Biden is able to whip up a legally-binding demand he can submit to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Friday’s FDA approval means only the CDC stands between American children and a warp-speed rollout of the Pfizer jab. However, the rush to approval doesn’t necessarily mean there are no concerns. A disturbingly large portion of the FDA committee’s members are connected to Pfizer in some way or another, leading vaccine skeptics to cry foul. Meanwhile, a growing portion of the country continues to denounce the mandates in general, insisting everyone should be able to make their own decision regarding whether or not they wish to get injected.

Echoing the newly-reanimated pro-choice slogan, mandate protesters recently swarmed the Brooklyn Bridge declaring ‘My body, my choice’ as New York City employees faced the potential loss of their jobs as firefighters, police officers, sanitation handlers, and corrections officers due to Mayor Bill de Blasio’s insistence that all municipal employees get vaxxed or be relegated to the purgatory of open-ended unpaid leave.

The FDA’s effort to put the cart so far in front of the horse mirrored the words of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during the congressional tug-of-war over Obamacare in 2010. Faced with a phonebook-sized, dubiously-legal bill unlike anything Congress had passed before and no realistic timeframe to wrangle with the details, Pelosi suggested Congress would have to “pass the bill to find out what’s in it, away from the fog of controversy.”

Since then, legislation by brute force has only grown as the means by which laws are passed in the US, as ever-more-polarized parties refuse to give an inch and betray the appearance of weakness. Allowing the ‘other side’ to be seen as achieving even the slightest victory is unconscionable, and that framework remains in place in the vaccination arena – where it makes less sense than anywhere else.

After all, it was former President Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed that brought the world the Pfizer shot, even if the jab itself wasn’t rolled out until shortly (some would say deliberately) after the 2020 election and vaccine mandates have since become a cause celebre of the Democratic Party.

With half the US up in arms about the other half’s supposed refusal to roll up its sleeves and submit to an intensely politicized needle, anyone who hesitates is denounced posthaste in a 21st-century witch hunt – to be fired, if not set on fire; outfitted with the scarlet A for anti-vaxxer, not adulteress; and otherwise chased out of the public square – deplatformed from Twitter, YouTube and Facebook, if not chased physically with pitchforks and torches. Similar divisions have erupted across Europe, and countries like Italy and France have pushed the issue even further, barring the unvaccinated from so much as entering grocery stores to buy food.

While the US study of the Pfizer vaccine’s effects on children five to 11 failed to turn up any deadly side effects, critics argued its population size was too small to be effective for such a purpose. Parents of some jab recipients have observed disturbing symptoms in their offspring in the hours and days following the shots and filmed heartbreaking testimonials describing their downfall from healthy children to pain-wracked perma-patients experiencing near-constant seizures, facial distortions, debilitating heart problems, or other dire health issues.

Another doctor on the FDA committee, Michael Kurilla of the National Institutes of Health, abstained from voting on recommending Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine entirely, citing a lack of evidence that all children need the shot, and while Kurilla, an infectious disease and pathology expert, was the only panel member to abstain from voting, he was not the only member to openly express misgivings about doling out the jab to young Americans. His colleague, Dr. Cody Meissner of Tufts University, suggested that it would be an “error” to mandate the jab for children to return to school until there was more hard data.

“We simply don’t know what the side effects are going to be,” he said, acknowledging the shot ​​– like its adult equivalent – probably wouldn’t prevent transmission of the virus. While he was not opposed to administering the shot to certain vulnerable subgroups inside the 5-11 age group, Meissner was concerned approving the shot for everyone in that category would lead to a heavy-handed mandate the likes of which is currently being wielded against American adults.

Children who receive the Pfizer-BioNTech jab may actually get less immunity and face more risk than supplied by getting and recovering from a current strain of Covid-19, Kurilla told the Daily Mail, referring to the Delta variant and other current strains of Covid-19 circulating among the population. “The question really becomes, does this vaccine offer any benefits to them at all?” he asked rhetorically during the FDA committee meeting. He would have voted ‘yes’ if the FDA had merely proposed opening up access to the vaccine to a ‘subset’ of those ages five to 11, but he disagreed with administering it to all children within that age group.

Two other panel members voted to approve despite their misgivings. Meissner argued that a “very small percent of otherwise healthy six-to-11-year-old children…might derive some benefit,” while President and CEO of Meharry Medical College James Hildreth agreed that “vaccinating all of the children…seems a bit much for me,” pointing to the relatively low risk of hospitalization and near-zero risk of death by Covid-19 for children.

Speaking up against the jab, even circumstantially, has become the kiss of death in the medical community, with even medical rock stars like Robert Malone, one of the inventors of mRNA as a drug, cast into the dustbin of history for expressing skepticism that his invention was being incorrectly used to deliver the Covid-19 vaccine.

However, governments worldwide are setting themselves up for civil war as populations are forced to choose one ‘side’ or another. Even many of the vaccinated have acknowledged that the jab should not be forced on anyone, while entire industries like shipping, air travel, defense, and the like grind to a halt as mandates run up against the stubborn will of their employees. Southwest Airlines was allegedly forced to cancel thousands of flights earlier this month, due to a reported mass ‘sickout’ by air traffic controllers unwilling to get vaxxed, though the airline itself has denied this, and rumors of trucker strikes from Australia to America have food sellers panicking at the thought of empty shelves.

As it stands, parents who were willing to submit themselves to experimental shots in the name of convenience and retaining employment may not be so willing to offer up their children as sacrifices to a company once denounced by the US Justice Department as the worst fraudster in the pharmaceutical industry.

Governments that have shown themselves as profoundly untrustworthy throughout the Covid-19 pandemic are unlikely to change their behavior at the last minute, and parents are wise to take care in where they place their trust.

November 2, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | 1 Comment

Media Kinda-Sorta Forgets to Mention Doctor’s $2 Million From Pfizer

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | November 02, 2021

A Canadian doctor pushing COVID-19 vaccine shots for children ages 5 years and up who’s been featured in numerous media reports received nearly $2 million in Pfizer funding for vaccine research.

Whether it was intentional or if the media kinda-sorta forgot to mention the conflict, or if they simply didn’t bother doing their own research before using Dr. Jim Kellner as a lead adviser on the COVID shot isn’t clear. But what is clear is that Pfizer has given the University of Calgary professor and pediatrician $1.9 million, with $787,004 of it still being allocated until 2022.

Kellner didn’t attempt to hide his conflict of interest; it’s easily found in his publicly posted curriculum vitae, with the current funding explicitly stated.

Yet, according to True North news, “Kellner’s name turns up over 41 times and appears in numerous videos and articles on the topic of vaccination without any indication of how much money he has received from the vaccine manufacturer Pfizer.”

November 2, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment