Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

How Two Hairstylists Changed Our Mask Policy

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | December 20, 2021

Americans and people around the globe have been forced to wear face masks in order to “protect public health,” without evidence that they actually work to reduce COVID-19 transmission, hospitalizations and deaths.

You may remember, in fact, that in the early days of the pandemic, there was a rush on masks, causing supplies for health care practitioners to dwindle. At the time, health officials were adamant that people should NOT wear masks.

In February 2020, Christine Francis, a consultant for infection prevention and control at the World Health Organization, said, “Medical masks … cannot protect against the new coronavirus when used alone … WHO only recommends the use of masks in specific cases.”1

Those specific cases include if you have a cough, fever or difficulty breathing. In other words, if you’re actively sick and showing symptoms. “If you do not have these symptoms, you do not have to wear masks because there is no evidence that they protect people who are not sick,” she continued.

Also in February 2020, U.K. health authorities advised against the use of masks, even for people working in community or residential care facilities, stating, “During normal day-to-day activities facemasks do not provide protection from respiratory viruses, such as COVID-19 and do not need to be worn by staff.”2

In March 2020, U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams publicly agreed, tweeting a message stating, “Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!” and going on to say that they are not effective in preventing the general public from catching coronavirus.3

As of March 31, WHO was still advising against the use of face masks for people without symptoms, stating that there is “no evidence” that such mask usage prevents COVID-19 transmission.4 How, then, did masks suddenly become a key strategy in the fight against COVID-19? A study involving two hairstylists.

Beauty Salon Study Used to Cement US Mask Mandates

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides more than 15 studies as their basis for recommending face masks. All of them are observational in nature, not randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which are considered the gold standard of scientific research.

“In general, observational studies are not only of lower quality than RCTs but also are more likely to be politicized, as they can inject the researcher’s judgment more prominently into the inquiry and lend themselves, far more than RCTs, to finding what one wants to find,” explained Jeffrey Anderson, former director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in a review published by City Journal.5

The CDC focused, in particular, on one of the studies — an observational cohort study of two hairstylists at a Missouri beauty salon who tested positive for COVID-19.6 The two stylists developed respiratory symptoms, but continued to see 139 clients for several days until they received positive COVID-19 tests. Both of the stylists wore masks during this time, as did most of the clients.

Sixty-seven of the clients ended up getting tested for COVID-19, none of whom tested positive. The other 72 clients did not report any symptoms, which led the CDC to state, “Adherence to the community’s and company’s face-covering policy likely mitigated spread of SARS-CoV-2.”7 But were the masks really the pivotal factor in the seeming lack of transmission at the salon? Anderson wrote:8

“This study has major limitations. For starters, any number of the 72 untested customers could have had Covid-19 but been asymptomatic, or else had symptoms that they chose not to report to the Greene County Health Department, the entity doing the asking.

The apparent lack of spread of Covid-19 could have been a result of good ventilation, good hand hygiene, minimal coughing by the stylists, or the fact that stylists generally, as the researchers note, ‘cut hair while clients are facing away from them.’”

One of the most important factors limiting the study’s usefulness, however, is its lack of a control group. Would the results have been different if the stylists or clients weren’t wearing masks? Nobody knows. For comparison, Anderson mentioned a scenario at a gym in Virginia, where most people did not wear masks. A trainer tested positive for COVID-19, but none of the 50 gym members who had worked with the trainer got sick.

“Clearly, this doesn’t prove that not wearing masks prevents transmission,” Anderson noted,9 yet this is precisely the logic that the CDC used in their support of the beauty salon study.

RCTs Cast Doubt on Masks

“It’s striking how much the CDC, in marshalling evidence to justify its revised mask guidance, studiously avoids mentioning randomized controlled trials,” Anderson continued. “Mask supporters often claim that we have no choice but to rely on observational studies instead of RCTs, because RCTs cannot tell us whether masks work or not. But what they really mean is that they don’t like what the RCTs show.”

Anderson evaluated 14 RCTs conducted worldwide on the effectiveness of masks in reducing respiratory virus transmission. Eleven of them found that masks don’t work to reduce transmission or, worse, are counterproductive and may increase risks. Only three of the studies suggest masks might be useful:10

“… one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than hand hygiene alone, one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than nothing, and one found that cloth masks were less effective than surgical masks.”

In one example,11 which claims to be the first RCT of cloth masks, conducted in 2015, 1,607 hospital health care workers were randomized to wear medical masks, cloth masks or a control group, which included mask wearing. The mask was used every shift for four consecutive weeks.

Not only were rates of infection significantly higher in those wearing cloth masks compared to medical masks or controls, but both types of masks let particles through — “Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%,” the researchers wrote.12 It wasn’t only that cloth masks weren’t effective; the researchers cautioned against their use, as “moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.”

In another instance, a review of 13 of the 14 RCTs mentioned above, published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, similarly found, “There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks” and “the pooled results of randomized trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza.”13

The “Danmask-19 Trial,” published November 18, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine,14 found that among mask wearers 1.8% (42 participants) ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% (53) among controls.

When they removed the people who reported not adhering to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8% (40 people), which suggests adherence makes no significant difference. The authors had difficulty getting the study published, as its results question mandatory masking. Anderson added:15

“Meanwhile, the CDC website portrays the Danish RCT (with its 4,800 participants) as being far less relevant or important than the observational study of Missouri hairdressers with no control group, dismissing the former as ‘inconclusive’ and ‘too small’ while praising the latter, amazingly, as ‘showing that wearing a mask prevented the spread of infection’ — when it showed nothing of the sort.”

Mask-Triggered Environmental Disaster Is Looming

If masks don’t work, the extreme environmental toll they’re taking becomes even more tragic. Writing in BMJ Open, researchers used a model to estimate usage, costs and waste incurred by N95 respirator usage over the first six months of the pandemic in the U.S.16

They found that, for health care workers, using a new N95 respirator for each patient encounter would require 7.41 billion respirators, cost $6.38 billion and generate 84 million kilograms (kg) (92,594 tons) of waste — that’s just over a six-month period and in the U.S. alone.

Even if this were cut down to one N95 mask per health care worker per day, it would still require 3.29 billion respirators, cost $2.83 billion and generate 37.22 million kg of waste. An MIT team has developed a reusable N95 mask made from silicone that contains a filter that can be sterilized and reused.17 Study author Giovanni Traverso told MIT News:18

“Our vision was that if we had a reusable system, we could reduce the cost. The majority of disposable masks also have a significant environmental impact, and they take a very long time to degrade.

During a pandemic, there’s a priority to protect people from the virus, and certainly that remains a priority, but for the longer term, we have to catch up and do the right thing, and strongly consider and minimize the potential negative impact on the environment.”

However, this doesn’t speak to the unfathomable number of disposable masks being discarded daily outside of health care settings. In a study, Swansea University researchers noted that 200 million disposable plastic facemasks are produced in China daily, and “improper and unregulated disposals” have led to a significant plastic pollution problem.19

Most disposable face masks contain three layers — a polyester outer layer, a polypropylene or polystyrene middle layer and an inner layer made of absorbent material such as cotton. Polypropylene is already one of the most problematic plastics, as it’s widely produced and responsible for large waste accumulation in the environment.

It’s not only the plastic itself that’s the problem but also the chemicals it contains. When seven disposable facemask brands were submerged in water to simulate what happens with littering when masks end up in waterways, micro- and nanoscale fibers and particles and heavy metals, including lead, antimony and copper, were detected, raising significant environmental and public health concerns.20

Just how many masks are being used and discarded? One estimate suggests 129 billion facemasks are used each month worldwide, while another found that 3.4 million are disposed of daily.21 But once they’re thrown in the trash, they don’t just disappear. To put this into perspective, an Environmental Advances study calculated that one face mask can release 173,000 microfibers daily into the sea.22

The researchers also found that face masks alone may account for an additional 72 to 31,200 tons of microplastic waste ending up in the world’s oceans in 2020. “Action is therefore urgently needed to limit the amount of discarded surgical masks reaching the marine ecosystem,” they wrote.23

Widespread mask mandates are not simply a matter of “wearing one can’t hurt.” This public health policy needs to be immediately reevaluated based on its ineffectiveness and potential for immense harm, both for the people wearing them and the environment being exposed to them.

Sources and References

December 20, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Michael Mann Says 64F At Penn State Is “Ridiculous”

By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | December 19, 2021

More misinformation from Michael Mann:

In fact December temperatures of 64F are perfectly normal at Penn State.

The highest December temperature was 71F In 1998:

http://climod2.nrcc.cornell.edu/

December 20, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

One more go at the 97% consensus

Guest post by Rafe Champion | JoNova | December 11, 2021

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. – Michael Crichton

The 97% consensus on catastrophic human-induced climate warming is one of the great PR coups of all time, demonstrating the effectiveness of The Big Lie for propaganda purposes. Cook’s 2013 paper became a springboard, coming strategically before the Paris COP, for Barack Obama and John Kerry to achieve a face-saving but meaningless result at the event. It was the rejoinder to the leaked emails from East Anglia that sank the Copenhagan COP.

It became the “go to” rejoinder and the killer argument in every private discussion and public debate – “I am just following the science.” Commentators and public service advisors use it to intimidate politicians and the public although practically no one has read the all-important paper by John Cook and associates, or even knows someone who has.

Three tasks

We have to explain how the offending paper fooled uncritical readers. My colleague Jeff Grimshaw has explained this with reference to the advertising tricks used to sell cat food. We also have to explain that the merits of rival scientific theories are determined by critical discussion and rigorous testing, not by a show of hands in the scientific community. Yet another task is to understand how a scientific culture emerged where Cook and associates would be allowed to pursue their work and there are many journals are pleased to publish the results.

The paper has no useful scientific content because it is not about science, it is about the opinions of a sample of scientists, interpreted by green activists and then sliced and diced to eliminate or misrepresent opinions that were not acceptable to the researchers.

The decisive step was to count everyone who thought there was warming and any amount of human influence in the category of people who are worried about warming. Close reading and repeated re-reading is necessary to understand how the information was collected and manipulated to get that result. Then a trick from the advertising industry came into play to sell their product – “97.1% of cats liked it!”

No scientists dispute warming because the arguments are about how much, over what period and with what cause, so you can bet on 100% agreement there, and likewise no scientists dispute human influence (even if it is just the heat island effect) and you can expect 100% there as well. The result should be 100% consensus on CAGW (the revised version) but 97.4% has a strangely reassuring “scientific “ ring to it, not quite 100% but very precise!

The two parts of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) meme: (1) warming is going to be catastrophic and (2 ) human activities are driving it.

Both of these need to be established to justify trillions of dollars of spending on projects that inflict massive environmental damage – like chemotherapy for the planet.

Both of them! Not just one or the other.

If the warming is dangerous and we make little or no contribution to it, then we can do little or nothing to avert the danger.

Alternatively if the warming is not dangerous then the extent of our influence is a matter of scientific interest but we don’t need to worry about it.

Starting with the first leg of the double. The case for the danger of warming is laughable because nobody can credibly deny the benefit of warming over the last 200 years, and the advance of warming has been glacial in recent times.

As for the human emissions of CO2 that are supposed to drive warming, we can reply, starting at the shallow end of the scientific pool. The geological record shows that high levels of CO2 never caused runaway warming. The level of CO2 at present (including a small fraction from human emissions) is nowhere near the pre-historical high points. Doubling atmospheric CO2 from 420ppm at present, with the current increase of 2ppm per annum, will take 200 years. There is a diminishing return from additional CO2 and most of the effect of rising CO2 since the Industrial Revolution has been used up with the one degree of warming since then. And so on and so forth as you go towards the deep end of the pool to learn from Happer and Lindzen on atmospheric physics.

How did Cook and associates manage to fool people into thinking that scientists are terrified of CAGW?

Regrettably a lot of people wanted to believe the consensus and serious public discussion is almost impossible because most people are scientifically illiterate. To be fair, that is not a sin, they just didn’t study science – you don’t beat a dog for chasing cats and you don’t blame cats for chasing mice. The sin for journalists, politicians and their advisors is to ignore the views of the significant number of very highly qualified scientists who are not alarmed. That may be harder since Steven Koonin emerged on the scene, untainted by incorrect political affiliations.

In case President Obama’s strident advocacy of the consensus was not enough, it would have gone viral through the Climate Action Network, a global coalition of 1500 organizations in 130 countries dedicated to driving climate alarm at the local level and in every form of media. There are 10 regional nodes and 12 national nodes, including Australia, and a few years ago they triggered a global offensive to enhance the language of alarmism with guidelines that The Guardian announced a few years ago – the standard terms are now global heating and climate crisis so on. Greta Thunberg signalled the new language in her viral tweet:

“It’s 2019. Can we all now call it what it is: climate breakdown, climate crisis, climate emergency, ecological breakdown, ecological crisis and ecological emergency?”[i]

The latest word is that CAN is closing some parts of the network, presumably because its work is done. Radical environmentalism evolved from the efforts of self-funded activists to organizations with enough money to employ fulltime workers to whole government departments like the US Environmental Protection Agency. Has anyone got a list of all the agencies in Australia that are doing climate and energy activism at our expense?. You could start here and here.

Selling the consensus and cat food

This is explained by my co-author Jeff Grimshaw in our forthcoming book Triggerwarming: A primer for politicians and journalists and anyone else who doesn’t know anything about climate science.

Consider the phrase “97% of scientists agree”? And how about “eight out of ten owners said their cat prefers it!”? Have you ever wondered where these promotional numbers come from? In the research conducted by John Cook and colleagues around the world, there were two stages of data collection followed by some very complicated analysis. It is necessary to read the paper several times to be clear about what they actually found, as distinct from their personal opinions and what they want the reader to think that they found. At the first stage Cook and the team read the abstracts of some 12,000 published papers on climate to find if the authors had a position on AGW:

“We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.” 

So how did 32.6 become 97? Have a look at cat food advertisements to explain this. How does anyone know that eight out of ten cats prefer a particular type of cat food? Did they ask the cats? In reality, the company simply asked cat owners if their cats liked their cat food and 80% said yes. So they discovered that cats like the cat food they are fed, and with only a modest distortion of the facts the company could claim that (almost) a consensus of cats liked their brand of cat food. After a complaint to the UK Advertising Standards Authority, the slogan was changed to eight out of ten owners who expressed a preference said their cat prefers Brand X.” That language hides as much as it reveals (how were they selected and what were they asked?) but the original slogan was well established and a slight change made no difference to the “vibe” of the advertisement.

Getting back to Cook and associates, in the abstract of the paper we read:

“Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” 

Nice work with the advertising gimmicks John! Of course he is a psychologist, not a climate scientist and he probably did a unit on Statistical Manipulation for Marketing and Advertising.

So that is advertising part of the deception, and what happened to the two key questions that scientists need to answer in the debate about CAGW – How much warming and how much human contribution? In their capacity as magicians the methodological arm-waving of Cook et al distracted the attention of readers from the lack of content (actually how many people read past the abstract?) and in their capacity as alchemists they transmuted the base metal of dodgy numbers into gold for climate alarmists. Not 24 carat gold to be sure. How do you rank it?

__________________________________________________

Jo Nova’s answer:

Cook’s work was a scientific wasteland from the start. Consensus is a fallacy. Science is not a democracy. The keyword survey of abstracts was always a meaningless proxy for biased government funding, and profoundly unscientific. To discuss it in any other terms is to pretend it had any scientific value at all.

Cook’s study could never tell us anything about the climate around the planet, all it could ever do was measure sociobehavioural aspects of the Climate Academic Complex. The more biased the government funding, the more biased the abstracts would be. If Cook was even slightly competent he might have shown that government funded science will find whatever it’s paid to find. Alas, it’s not that useful. Cook got biased friends to subjectively “rate” abstracts. This is not even junk sociology.

Posts on Cooks “consensus”.

December 20, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Orwell was Right: Control the Language, Control the World

By Bill Rice, Jr. | American Thinker | December 18, 2021

Of all the elements of today’s “New Normal,” the most ominous is the “reform” that effectively changed the meanings of previously accepted words or terms. The following glossary illustrates how changes to our vocabulary played a central role in making the world a more dangerous and frightening place.

New Normal – “Normal” is something that has long been the norm and is accepted as the norm. The key point is that the “old” normal no longer applies. This change in thinking provided authority figures the license to enact reforms that would not have been widely accepted in the past.

In the old normal, a citizen might not have complied with authoritarian mandates, but in the New Normal, most will… that is, if one accepts the premise that we now have a New Normal, a premise most people now accept.

Vaccine — Previously a vaccine was an injection that provided “immunity” or prevented diseases, as well as the spread of diseases. Today, at least as it involves the COVID “vaccines,” vaccines simply (and allegedly) reduce the probability someone will develop a severe case of this disease or die from this disease.

Safe — An activity that is not dangerous or does not cause harm.

According to public health officials and almost all doctors, COVID vaccines are “safe and effective.” According to VAERS, approximately one million Americans believe they have suffered adverse medical reactions to COVID vaccines, with approximately 20,000 deaths possibly caused by the vaccines. Several studies have concluded that VAERS captures only a small fraction of such adverse events.

Effective — Certainly today “effective” does not mean COVID vaccines prevent infection or virus spread. In many heavily vaccinated countries, the vaccinated comprise a greater percentage of new COVID cases than the unvaccinated.

Harm — Something that injures, perhaps even kills, or causes someone pain or discomfort. The key change here is that “harm” can now be caused by speech. The nexus that would definitively trace any alleged harm to any piece of speech is nebulous and impossible to prove.

Still, a person who composes words determined to include “misinformation” or “disinformation” is held guilty of causing potential harm to people who might read these words. Such a person can be censored, maligned, lose their jobs, or even be prosecuted. In our Old Normal, this rarely happened. In our New Normal, it happens daily.

Misinformation or Disinformation — In its simplest terms, this would be information that is provably false.

In our “New Normal,” misinformation or disinformation is simply any information that challenges the veracity of pronouncements made by authorized experts or authorities. That is, Dr. Anthony Fauci, America’s leading public health authority, cannot be charged with producing “disinformation,” but skeptic Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. can and should be.

Also, in today’s New Normal, many people censor their own thoughts as they know “free speech” can result in personal or professional harm. By now, the censors don’t even have to censor everyone.  People do it themselves.

Science and “The science” — A theory largely accepted by the scientific community and public.

“Science” used to be the process of testing a hypothesis and was almost never “settled.” In the past, a skeptic who examined or challenged the conclusions of peers was himself engaging in science. Today, “The Science” is what the authorized scientists and officials at public health bureaucracies say it is, and cannot or should not be challenged by other “scientists…” who perhaps should not even be called scientists and should now be labeled as “science deniers.” Or as…

Anti-vaxxer — Technically, this would be a person who opposes all vaccines. In Newspeak, it means anyone who is against mandatory COVID vaccines. In practice, this term is used as a slur to denigrate anyone who questions the pronouncements of authorities.  If you oppose mandatory COVID vaccines for whatever reason, you are a “science denier” or “anti-science…” and, as such can and should be punished or censored because you could be causing “harm” to the public.

Free or freedom — In “the land of the free” the definition of freedom has also been radically changed.

Today, some Americans are “free” to keep their jobs or go to a restaurant or see a play if they can prove they have received at least two injections of an experimental vaccine (a vaccine where the vaccinated waive their right to sue if they later suffer harm). Americans may be allowed to engage in “free speech” on social media… if they say the right things.

It’s not just “COVID” topics that are now being regulated by speech monitors. If you publish “extremist” speech or politically incorrect speech that can be labeled as “harmful” or “dangerous,” you also can lose your job or speech privileges.

With the precedent established that speech can cause “harm” and that the primary role of government is to protect people from harm, the harm of being “offended” by speech is now a sanctionable offense.

Patriotism or patriot — In the past, a “patriot” was one who stood up to tyrannical governments and/or displayed a great love for their country. Today, for many Americans, a patriot is one who complies with the edicts of their government and helps attack or embarrasses those who challenge governmental authority.

Just this week, President Biden proclaimed that Americans who get vaccinated are doing their patriotic duty. This statement builds on the “us-against-them” theme, the good American vs. bad American narrative.

Public health — This term once meant the state of overall health in hundreds of millions of people who comprise “the public.” In the last two years, it’s come to mean the “health” of people who may or may not have COVID-19.

Today, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, mental health, obesity – all the conditions that kill and harm people — are afterthoughts when compared to “COVID health.”

All of the above was made possible by changes in accepted language. George Orwell was right. If you want to control people, first control the language.

COVID, a virus that poses no significant health risk to 98 percent of the population, has given us a “New Normal” where “vaccines” are not vaccines, where “freedom” is now a privilege granted to those who obey, and where unelected public health officials have made billions of dollars for pharmaceutical companies.

Bill Rice, Jr. is a freelance writer in Troy, Alabama. He can be reached by email at wrjicejunior@gmail.com.

December 20, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Omicron: The Lockdowners’ Last Stand

By Ron Paul | December 20, 2021

Just as President Biden’s unconstitutional vaccination mandates were being ripped up by the courts, authoritarian politicians, public health bureaucrats, and the mainstream media, announced a new Covid variant to justify another round of lockdowns and restrictions. The things that didn’t work last time would be a good idea to do again this time, they claim.

For these authoritarians, the timing of omicron’s emergence was perfect.

The variant was first discovered in South Africa, with the US and European media running endless scare stories. Authoritarian politicians used the manufactured fear to justify another attack on liberty. Europe shut down and became a virtual prison camp. In Austria, Germany, and elsewhere, citizens became non-persons without a vaccine passport.

South African health officials reported that the variant seemed to be more contagious but far milder than previous variants, as usually happens with such viruses. But the lockdowners would not hear of it. From Boris Johnson in the UK to DeBlasio in New York City, the variant was perfect cover for them to put their boots back on the necks of terrorized citizens.

As to be expected, Fauci reveled in the emergence of the new variant, warning of “record deaths” for the unvaccinated. Similarly, President Biden warned that this would be a “winter of death” for the unvaccinated.

But here’s something the media isn’t reporting about the omicron outbreaks: they are taking place among the fully vaccinated. Cornell University, with 97 percent of the campus fully vaccinated and a mask mandate, has announced that it would return to online only instruction after a massive Covid outbreak. Likewise, the National Football League has postponed several games this weekend due to Covid outbreaks, even though the League is virtually 100 percent vaccinated. And the National Basketball Association, which is above 95 percent fully vaccinated, has just announced that due to a surge in Covid cases it too will postpone games.

The vaccine is not working to prevent infection or transmission of the virus: cases are raging in states with the highest vaccine levels. Yet the “experts” continue to maintain that the only thing that can stop the spread of omicron is vaccines! More people are catching on that this makes no sense. If vaccines don’t stop the spread, how can vaccines stop the spread?

Meanwhile, South Africa, with one of the lowest rates of vaccination, has just announced that they are only seeing a tiny fraction of hospitalizations with omicron compared to previous variants. South Africa’s Covid response authority has written to the health minister recommending an end to containment efforts, contact tracing, and quarantines.

Unvaccinated South Africa is ending Covid restrictions while the hyper-vaccinated North is locking down. Something doesn’t add up.

Fauci loves to say that to question him is to question science, but this has nothing to do with science. It’s about power. Fauci, the political authoritarians, and the corrupt Big Pharma billionaires are trying to make a last stand, desperate to push omicron as a justification for further tyranny and profits. But actual science is not cooperating.

Omicron is spreading and vaccines are not stopping it. Thus far nearly half of omicron infections are asymptomatic. Some experts are predicting that omicron will spell the end of Covid-19. But we know that as long as people like Fauci are around, Covid-19 will never end. Unless, of course, we repudiate the charlatans and profiteers and reclaim our liberty!

Copyright © 2021 by RonPaul Institute

December 20, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 3 Comments

Omicron is Not Normal

Everything suggests this variant was leaked from a laboratory engaged in gain-of-function research

eugyppius | December 20, 2021

Omicron is not normal. No immediate progenitors are known; its closest relatives are viruses last seen in early- to mid-2020. The orthodox explanation for this awkward fact, is that it has spent the last 18 months lurking “in a geography with poor genomic surveillance … or … in a chronically infected individual.” The simpler explanation is that it leaked from a laboratory.

As el gato malo and others have indicated, evidence is strong that Omicron circulates preferentially in the vaccinated. In all likelihood, it is the result of gain-of-function research, in which it was passaged repeatedly through convalescent or vaccinated plasma, in the hopes of helping the virus evade acquired immunity. The purpose of this research would be to anticipate future immune-escape variants that vaccines might target.

Omicron carries a series of highly unlikely and suspicious mutations in its spike protein. It is hard to imagine that these mutations can have arisen via natural processes, because all but one of them are nonsynonymous – that is, they code for different amino acid sequences. Starkly mutated variants favoured by natural selection should have a great many meaningless synonymous mutations as well.

Omicron’s ancestors may have spent a significant amount of time adapting to mouse cells, before re-entering human hosts. Omicron appears selected to replicate primarily in the bronchial tract. Deeper in the human lung, it functions far less efficiently than Delta or the first strains from Wuhan. This is probably why it causes mostly mild illness, and it is reminiscent of techniques used to make live attenuated influenza vaccines safer for use in humans. Such vaccines are cold-adapted, that is, selected to circulate primarily in the cooler upper respiratory tract rather than in the warmer, more vulnerable lungs.

The balance of the evidence is that Omicron leaked from a lab engaged in SARS-2 vaccine research. There are many possibilities: It might represent a live, attenuated virus vaccine used informally among researchers, that mutated back to virulence and escaped; it might have been released accidentally; it could even be an attempt to develop a self-spreading vaccine to immunise animals or third world populations.

December 20, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | 1 Comment

Five christmas book recommendations

By Sebastian Rushworth, M.D. | December 18, 2021

I’m taking a break from the blog until the new year, and in light of that I thought I’d recommend some books that have come out in 2021 and that I think are well worth a read over the christmas holidays.

  1. A hunter gatherer’s guide to the 21st century. This book, written by evolutionary biologists Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (who also host the excellent Dark Horse podcast), attempts to explain why modern people are so unhealthy, stressed, and dissatisfied with life, by analyzing the many ways in which life in modern civilization differs from the environment that we have evolved to thrive in.
  2. The clot thickens. British physician Malcolm Kendrick has made it his life’s work to understand what actually causes heart disease, based on the early realization that the traditional cholesterol hypothesis (widely believed by cardiologists everywhere) has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. In this book he distils decades of research and thinking in to a single coherent whole, and explains what the true cause of heart disease is.
  3. A plague upon our house. American physician and health policy researcher Scott Atlas realized early in the covid pandemic that the broad brush lockdowns that were then being instituted would result in massively more harm than they would ever prevent. He started writing articles on the topic, and in the summer of 2020 this resulted in him being brought in to the heart of the US government, to serve as a special advisor to the president. This book is a first hand account of his experiences in that role.
  4. The ministry of bodies. This book is a diary of sorts, detailing the last year before retirement of Irish physician Seamus O’Mahony as he worked as a consultant in the medicine wards of a big teaching hospital. The book is both funny and dark, and showcases the absurdity of modern healthcare, from metric driven care, to pharma corruption, to the inability to face death that characterizes modern civilization.
  5. Covid: why most of what you know is wrong. I’d be remiss not to mention my own book, which came out in early 2021, and is thus now almost a year old. The book was meant to do two things – first teach people how to look at and analyze scientific studies themselves, so that they’re not beholden to other peoples’ interpretations, and second to go through what the scientific evidence in relation to covid acutally shows, since what has been said by the media and by public health officials has often been patently false. I think the book still holds up pretty well almost a year later, with one exception. In the book, I was cautiously optimistic about the vaccines, based on the limited data then available. We now know that the protection they offer is fleeting, and that they can cause serious harms in the form of myocarditis and blood clotting disorders. They certainly aren’t the magic bullets many of us were hoping for.

That’s it for 2021 from me. Over the course of the year, this blog has grown from 10,000 to almost 40,000 followers, and from zero to almost 500 patrons. I am deeply grateful that so many of you find my work valuable and worth supporting. My goal for 2022 is to increase the number of patrons further, to 1,000, which would allow me to cut down my hours at the hospital, and thus be able to spend much more of my time researching, writing, and podcasting. That in turn would allow me to produce more frequent and more deeply researched content. If you haven’t already signed up as a patron, then please help make that vision come true by doing so. You can sign up here.

Merry Christmas and happy new year! Let’s hope 2022 is the year in which sanity returns to public discourse!

December 20, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

The Scheming of Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | December 17, 2021

Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci have become household names in the U.S., their largely sterling reputations protected by a heavily biased press. Less known is the deep partnership between the two — the culmination of which has created a formidable public-private partnership that wields incredible power over the American public, along with global health and food policies.

You can read all of the details in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s bestselling book, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” which contains more than 2,200 footnotes backing up its data. It exposes the connection between Gates and Fauci, as well as how Gates patterned his rise to control after John Rockefeller’s empire.

In 1913, Rockefeller created the Rockefeller Foundation, which is largely responsible for creating the Big Pharma-controlled medical paradigm that exists today. The foundation imbued its philosophy, precepts and ideologies into the League of Nations Health Organization, which turned into the World Health Organization.

Now, Gates contributes to WHO via multiple avenues, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) as well as GAVI, which was founded by the Gates Foundation in partnership with WHO, the World Bank and various vaccine manufacturers. Together, this makes Gates WHO’s No. 1 funder.

How Gates Used Rockefeller’s Business Model

Inspired by Rockefeller’s business model, Bill and Melinda Gates donated $36 billion worth of Microsoft stock to the BMGF between 1994 and 2018. Gates also created a separate entity, Bill Gates Investments (BGI), which manages his personal wealth and his foundation’s corpus.

BGI predominantly invests in multinational food, agriculture, pharmaceutical, energy, telecom and tech companies with global operations. Federal tax laws require the BMGF to give away a portion of its foundation assets annually to qualify for tax exemption.

Gates strategically targets BMGF’s charitable gifts to give him control of the international health and agricultural agencies and the media, allowing him to dictate global health and food policies so as to increase profitability of the large multinationals in which he and his foundation hold large investment positions.

As was the case with Rockefeller, whose wealth only grew after his Standard Oil Company was forced to split into 34 different companies, Gates’ strategic gifts have only magnified his wealth. Gates’ personal net worth grew from $63 billion in 2000 to $129.6 billion in 2021,1 his wealth expanding by $23 billion during the 2020 lockdowns alone.2

How Gates Controls the WHO

How does a private citizen, not an elected official, gain so much control over a global health agency like WHO? When it was founded, WHO could decide how to distribute its contributions. Now, 70% of its budget is tied to specific projects, countries or regions, which are dictated by the funders.3 As such, Gates’ priorities are the backbone of WHO, and it wasn’t a coincidence when he said of WHO, “Our priorities, are your priorities.”4

As of 2018, the cumulative contributions from the Gates Foundation and GAVI made “Gates the unofficial top sponsor of the WHO, even before the Trump administration’s 2020 move to cut all his support to the organization,” according to Kennedy. “Plus, Gates also routes funding to WHO through SAGE [Strategic Advisory Group of Experts] and UNICEF and Rotary International bringing his total contributions to over $1 billion.”

These tax-deductible donations give Gates both leverage and control over international health policy, “which he largely directs to serve the profit interest of his pharma partners.”

Further, “Gate’s vaccine obsession has diverted WHO’s program contributions from poverty alleviation, nutrition and clean water to make vaccine uptake its preeminent public health metric. And Gates is not afraid to throw his weight around,” according to Kennedy. “… The sheer magnitude of his foundation’s financial contributions has made Bill Gates an unofficial — albeit unelected — leader of the WHO.” Gates’ power has grown further due to his decadeslong partnership with Fauci.

Fauci’s Immense Power

Alone, both Gates and Fauci wield immense power in their fields. Together, they’re a formidable, if unfortunately nefarious, force.

As the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) — part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) — “Fauci has a $6.1 billion budget that he distributes to colleges and universities to do drug research for various diseases,” Kennedy says. “He has another $1.7 billion that comes from the military to do bioweapons research.”5

This is where Fauci’s power lies: in his capacity to fund, arm, pay, maintain and effectively deploy a large and sprawling standing army. The NIH alone controls an annual $37 billion budget distributed in over 50,000 grants supporting over 300,000 positions globally in medical research.6

The thousands of doctors, hospital administrators, health officials and research virologists whose positions, careers and salaries depend on AIDS dollars flowing from Dr. Fauci, Gates and the Wellcome Trust (Great Britain’s version of the Gates Foundation) are the officers and soldiers in a mercenary army that functions to defend all vaccines and Dr. Fauci’s HIV/AIDS doxologies.

Along with Gates, Fauci had the power to influence funding of U.S. foreign aid to Africa for AIDS, prioritizing that for vaccines and drugs instead of nutrition, sanitation and economic development. Yet, Fauci and his team, funded by Gates, have never created a vaccine for AIDS, despite squandering billions of dollars, and causing uncounted human carnage. In 2020, many of the Gates/Fauci HIV vaccine trials in Africa suddenly became COVID-19 vaccine trials.7

As explained in Kennedy’s book, HIV provided Gates and Fauci a beachhead in Africa for their new brand of medical colonialism and a vehicle for the partners to build and maintain a powerful global network that came to include heads of state, health ministers, international health regulators, the WHO, the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, key leaders from the financial industry and military officials who served as command center of the burgeoning Biosecurity Apparatus.

Their foot soldiers were the army of frontline virologists, vaccinologists, clinicians and hospital administrators who relied on their largesse and acted as the community-based ideological commissars of this crusade.

Fauci ‘Enthusiastic’ About Gates COVID Partnership

April 1, 2020, Fauci spoke with Gates on the phone, according to emails released in 2021. Fauci referred to the phone call in an email to Emilio Emini, the director of the Gates Foundation’s tuberculosis and HIV program, stating, “As I had mentioned to Bill yesterday evening, I am enthusiastic about moving towards a collaborative and hopefully synergistic approach to COVID-19.”8

The email was part of 3,000 emails obtained via a FOIA public records request by the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN). Despite having no medical degree, Gates has been granted direct access to top government health officials, who regard him as a public health authority. In June 2021, Daily Mail reported:9

“The Gates Foundation has committed at least $1.75 billion toward the global effort to fight the pandemic — a sum that opened doors at the highest levels of government. Following Fauci’s phone call with Gates, the Gates Foundation executive Emini emailed him to follow up and ask ‘how we can coordinate and cross inform each other’s activities.’

‘There’s an obvious need for coordination among the various primary funders or the focus we need to have given the state of the pandemic will become lost through uncoordinated activities,’ Emini wrote.”

Fauci also said he would facilitate a call between Emini and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA),10 which provides funding for vaccine and drug development, promoting “the advanced development of medical countermeasures to protect Americans and respond to 21st century health security threats.”11 Daily Mail continued:12

“The Gates Foundation’s partnership with BARDA resulted in at least one joint funding project. In June 2020, Evidation Health announced that BARDA and the Gates Foundation were financing an effort to ‘develop an early warning algorithm to detect symptoms of COVID-19.’

It’s unclear whether the warning system was ever launched, and Evidation issued no further statements on the project after the initial announcement. Other emails released … make it clear that the Gates Foundation remained actively involved in the NIH’s pandemic response.”

The Fauci-Gates partnership led to $1 billion in increased funding to Gates’ global vaccine programs, even as the NIH budget itself experienced little growth.13 Long before the April 2021 phone call, however, Kennedy’s book reveals that Fauci and Gates met in person, shaking hands in 2000 in an agreement to control and expand the global vaccine enterprise.

Why Haven’t You Heard About This Before?

When you’re one of the richest people in the world, you can buy virtually anything you want — including control of the media so that it only prints favorable press. If you have enough money — and Gates certainly does — you can even get major media companies like ViacomCBS, which runs MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon and BET, among others, to insert your approved PSAs into their programming — and BMGF has.14

Via more than 30,000 grants, Gates has contributed at least $319 million to the media, Alan MacLeod, a senior staff writer for MintPress News, revealed.15 From press and journalism associations to journalistic training, Gates is an overarching keeper of the press, which makes true objective reporting pertaining to Gates himself — or his many initiatives — virtually impossible.16

Speaking with MintPress News, Linsey McGoey, a professor of sociology at the University of Essex, U.K., explained that Gates’ philanthropy comes with a price:17

“Philanthropy can and is being used deliberately to divert attention away from different forms of economic exploitation that underpin global inequality today.

The new ‘philanthrocapitalism’ threatens democracy by increasing the power of the corporate sector at the expense of the public sector organizations, which increasingly face budget squeezes, in part by excessively remunerating for-profit organizations to deliver public services that could be delivered more cheaply without private sector involvement.”

It’s a sentiment Kennedy, who believes Fauci and Gates should be investigated for criminal wrongdoing, has echoed. In an interview, he stated that billionaires are in collusion with media, corporations and politicians in order to increase their tremendous wealth:18

“The most important productive strategy or the big talk around the oligarchs and the intelligence agencies and the pharmaceutical companies who are trying to impoverish us and obliterate democracy, their strategy is to create fear and division.

So orchestrate fear, divide Republicans from Democrats and blacks from whites and get a lot of infighting so nobody notices that they are making themselves billions and billions, while they impoverish the rest of us and execute the controlled demolition of American constitutional democracy.”

For more details on how the Fauci-Gates-Pharma alliance is furthering the agenda of totalitarian control, using unfathomable power and greed — all under the guise of a pandemic — read “The Real Anthony Fauci.”

Sources and References

December 20, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment