Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Hospital and Care Home Visiting Restrictions Are “Cruel, Inhumane and Unnecessary”, Doctors Tell MPs

By Will Jones | The Daily Sceptic | April 29, 2022 

The Pandemic Response and Recovery All-Party Parliamentary Group met this week to hear about visiting restrictions still being imposed by many care homes and NHS Trusts. Co-chaired by Rt Hon Esther McVey MP and Graham Stringer MP, the Group listened to evidence about the devastating effects visiting restrictions in hospitals have on patients and their loved ones. MPs also heard how visiting restrictions in care homes, along with the continued use of rolling lockdowns and over interpretation of testing guidelines, is leading to isolation, neglect and abuse of the residents.

Leandra Ashton, who co-founded The People’s Care Watchdog, Dr. Ammar Waraich, a medical registrar in the West Midlands, Carol Munt, experienced Patient Partner and Advocate and Dr. Ali Haggett, community mental health and wellbeing specialist, told MPs of the obstacles still in place when trying to visit a loved one and the shocking impact on vulnerable hospital patients, care home residents and their families.

All the speakers voiced serious concerns that obstacles are still in place in some healthcare settings. Politicians heard harrowing accounts of the harmful effects of isolation and loss of social contact on physical and mental health, safeguarding problems with medication, dehydration, hygiene and lack of basic care and the failures to uphold existing legislation to protect those who lack capacity.

Leandra Ashton’s mother was arrested in November 2020 for taking her grandmother out of her care home a day before the second lockdown. Two years on, many residents are still being isolated from their loved ones. She told MPs:

When I took the video of my mum being arrested taking my nan out of her care home, I did not think it would go viral. So many families got in touch and it led to us setting up the People’s Care Watchdog. We were struck by how much legislation is in place, such as Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, Deprivation of Liberty and the Mental Capacity Act, to protect those in care homes. These laws are simply not being upheld and instead guidelines are being over-interpreted and the legislation even used to keep people in care homes and hospitals as if they were prisons. The public bodies that are supposed to uphold the protective legislation are not doing so.

There are still obstacles in place when trying to visit a loved one in a care home and the impact has been and continues to be devastating. The safeguarding issues I am seeing and hearing about are atrocious. Residents left for hours in dirty, wet incontinence pads leading to dangerous pressure ulcers. Malnutrition. Dehydration. End of life medication given to patients without their or their family’s consent. Psychological trauma, post-traumatic stress and suicides have resulted because of this. Multiple systems are failing, including Local Authorities and the CQC. It is a complex situation that needs a bold approach by both empowering families and galvanising Government action to hold public bodies to account and stop private equity firms placing profit over people.

Listening to the evidence, Esther McVey said:

I am troubled by the evidence presented by our speakers, particularly the safeguarding issues and neglect that care home residents are suffering as a result. In hospitals, we have heard about patients losing hope and refusing treatment without the encouragement of family. We know patients have much better treatment outcomes when they have support from relatives and friends around them.

Most of the infection control measures that restricted visiting in healthcare settings have been removed, most recently NHS Trusts were told healthcare workers, patients and visitors no longer need to distance in hospitals, so I fail to see why and how these visiting restrictions are still in place in any healthcare setting. I shall be writing to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to ask that he makes it absolutely clear that all patients and residents must be able to see visitors.

Highlighting how visitation is an important and necessary part of healthcare, Carol Munt said:

In the same way that we would not stop prescribed medication and treatments, we should not have stopped visits. Why were decisions taken without any consideration for the need of patients and their families to connect? Why do we still have such variation in compassionate care across the country? There is no uniformity among care homes apart from the need to be profitable for their owners. Some care homes made a superhuman effort to arrange visiting, as did the Bristol Nightingale Hospital. There was good practice in some places so there should be good practice everywhere. We should expect more of these endemic situations and we must be prepared for them.

I could not comprehend how any Minister for Health and Social Care could allow this to happen and not make the effort to get his department to look at ways that visiting could be facilitated. I heard and continue to hear the most callous reports of relatives dying alone with no visitors. The same goes for hospital patients. Ultimately, I think we need legislation to ensure that visiting rights are enshrined and protected.

Medical Registrar Dr. Ammar Waraich reported that many hospitals are still preventing visits due to the potential risk of Covid spread:

The policy is cruel, inhumane and unnecessary. Seeing loved ones can be immensely therapeutic and give struggling patients the will to survive. It is deeply traumatic for families to lose loved ones suddenly or see them go through difficult treatment without being there in person. Video calls are not a good enough replacement and we do not have the staff, the time or resources to facilitate calls for all our patients.

Most infection control measures have been lifted as the level of risk is no longer there. Hospitals can no longer function as detention centres and an inpatient stay should not become a sentence. The policy was one of the major mistakes of lockdown. Visiting sick relatives in hospital is, and must remain, a fundamental right, not to be given up.

Co-chair Graham Stringer said:

I find it extraordinary that no visiting is allowed in some healthcare settings, even to this day. It is cruel that family members are being denied access to sick and vulnerable loved ones, often not getting regular updates, living in anxiety about what their relatives may be going through, but knowing they are going through frightening and difficult treatment, often at the end of their lives, without being able to be with them in person.

“At the height of the pandemic it was understandable that there were precautions but there is no longer a basis to that argument. All the restrictions have been lifted and NHS Trusts across England have now been told to ‘return to pre-pandemic physical distancing in all areas’. The government must take action to resolve this situation.

Speaking about her experience working in the community throughout the pandemic, Dr. Ali Haggett said:

I have spent the last eighteen months with the support group Unlock Care Homes, uncovering the plight of many thousands of families who are still denied regular, meaningful contact with care home residents and hospital patients. Even before Covid, we knew that isolating people, particularly older people, has a serious impact on physical and psychological health. We have continued to isolate adults in care and in some hospitals almost continuously for two years. The effects have been felt particularly badly by those with dementia. Many residents no longer recognise their families and have been denied the most basic of human needs.

My concern is that this situation is concealing neglect and abuse on a significant scale. One of my community members sadly died and the hospital has admitted liability partly because he was completely blind and couldn’t reach his food or drink. Had his wife been allowed to visit, this wouldn’t have happened. Families I work with report numerous issues still affecting them, not just visiting restrictions. Rolling lockdowns, over-interpretation of testing, PPE requirements resulting in poor communication and fear, lack of ancillary services such as podiatry or physiotherapy leading to huge health problems, residents asked to isolate when one person tests positive, sometimes for 10 days or more and the one significant visitor recommendation being ignored or rejected. Families must be able to visit openly and check the wellbeing of residents.

Stop Press: MPs and Peers including Esther McVey, Lord Frost, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Sir Graham Brady, Emma Lewell-Buck, Graham Stringer and Sammy Wilson have written to the Telegraph to say they are “deeply concerned” that visiting is still forbidden in many institutions where “over-interpretation of testing guidelines is leading to isolation, neglect and abuse of vulnerable residents”. They point out that Article 8 of the Human Rights Act and the Mental Capacity Act “could and should have protected against this situation arising” but this legislation is being “wilfully misinterpreted as an excuse” to keep people isolated in care homes and hospitals “as if they were prisons”.

May 1, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Masks may have caused MORE Covid deaths

The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | April 30, 2022

A newly published, peer-reviewed study in Cureus looked to see if there was a correlation between mask compliance and COVID-19 outcomes in Europe. The study was undertaken at the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil.

The authors noted that previous trials about mask effectiveness had produced mixed results and those that concluded that masks were associated with a reduction in transmission and cases were conducted out of season.

“The World Health Organization (WHO) as well as other public institutions…strongly recommend the use of masks as a tool to curb COVID-19 transmission. These mandates and recommendations took place despite the fact that most randomised controlled trials carried out before and during the COVID-19 pandemic concluded that the role of masks in preventing respiratory viral transmission was small, null, or inconclusive. Conversely, ecological studies, performed during the first months of the pandemic, comparing countries, states, and provinces before and after the implementation of mask mandates almost unanimously concluded that masks reduced COVID-19 propagation.

However, mask mandates were normally implemented after the peak of COVID-19 cases in the first wave, which might have given the impression that the drop in the number of cases was caused by the increment in mask usage. For instance, the peak of cases in Germany’s first wave occurred in the first week of April 2020, while masks became mandatory in all of Germany’s federal states between the 20th and 29th of April, at a time when the propagation of COVID-19 was already declining.

Furthermore, the mask mandate was still in place in the subsequent autumn-winter wave of 2020-2021, but it did not help preventing the outburst of cases and deaths in Germany that was several-fold more severe than in the first wave.”

Due to the different levels of masking in Europe (5% – 95% compliance), it gave the authors the opportunity to test masking during a strong COVID-19 wave.

“Data were collected from the following Eastern and Western European countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Hungary, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Republic of Moldova, Ukraine, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland. The inclusion criterion was a population size higher than one million people.”

Analysis was undertaken to verify if masking correlated with COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. The data looked at were between October 2020 and March 2021, in the 35 European countries listed above, during which all the countries went through a peak COVID-19 infection wave.

The average proportion of masking was 60.9% with Eastern Europe being slightly higher than Western Europe. However, compliance was much more homogeneous in the East than the West.

Importantly, results showed a weak positive correlation for mask compliance versus morbidity (cases) and mortality (deaths).

Each dot in the diagrams above represent a different country. As you can see, as mask compliance goes up, so do cases/million and deaths/million.

Please note, the positive correlation for mask usage and cases was not statistically significant. However, the correlation for masks and deaths WAS statistically significant.

The correlation was even higher in the West compared to Eastern countries. It is suggested that this could be because larger countries are located in the West. However, even when the largest countries were removed, the correlations hardly changed.

Various other analyses were performed, e.g. using smaller and larger countries but no tests resulted in negative correlations.

The authors conclude by saying that “while no cause-effect conclusions could be inferred from this observational analysis, the lack of negative correlations between mask usage and COVID-19 cases and deaths suggest that the widespread use of masks at a time when an effective intervention was most needed, i.e., during the strong 2020-2021 autumn-winter peak, was not able to reduce COVID-19 transmission. Moreover, the moderate positive correlation between mask usage and deaths in Western Europe also suggests that the universal use of masks may have had harmful unintended consequences.”

Science is finally catching up with the science that disappeared two years ago. Whilst this study is not conclusive, it is quite damning and will be interesting to see what masking mandates or recommendations are brought back, next winter, after this.

May 1, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Blame the unjabbed – whatever the facts

By Guy Hatchard | TCW Defending Freedom | April 29, 2022

The writer is in New Zealand

THE business magazine Forbes has published a story with the arresting headline: ‘Unvaccinated People Increase Risk Of Covid Infection Among Vaccinated, Study Finds.’

The work to which it refers is not in the normal sense a study but is actually a modelling exercise published by the journal of the Canadian Medical Association. Did the Forbes staff writer read the paper very well? I am quite sure not. At the end of paragraph one of the Method section of the original paper, it describes its model, saying: ‘A vaccine that is 80 per cent efficacious would result in 80 per cent of vaccinated people becoming immune, with the remaining 20 per cent being susceptible to infection. We did not model waning immunity.’

Now I am sure you know that the mRNA vaccines do not stop infection and also wane in effectiveness. In other words mRNA vaccination does not confer immunity and its effectiveness does not remain constant as the paper assumes. So what use is this paper and to what do its conclusions apply? Apparently not to the mRNA Covid vaccines.

Lo and behold, one of the paper’s authors, David Fisman, declares competing interests: ‘He has served on advisory boards related to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Pasteur Vaccines.’

Another author, Ashleigh Tuite, was ‘employed by the Public Health Agency of Canada when the research was conducted’ (aka the domain of Justin Trudeau).

So why publish this story which on the face of it has little relevance to the real-world data of the current pandemic? Forbes magazine is 51 per cent owned by a Hong Kong-based company, Integrated Whale Investments, about which little is known. The Washington Post has suggested that Forbes’s editorial policy has been influenced as a result, but by whom no one really knows.

At this point in the pandemic, it has become clear that boosted individuals are becoming more vulnerable to Omicron than the unvaccinated. So I can only suggest that it might be advantageous for some scientists and politicians to blame the unvaccinated for everything in order to cover up their own mistaken ideas. Or perhaps there are commercial interests anxious to sell more arguably useless vaccines for billions of dollars. You decide.

If the government and their compliant media friends are our one source of truth, as has happened in New Zealand (by decree), then you have no option except to blame the unvaccinated whatever happens.

The actual situation is that the unvaccinated are currently less likely to be hospitalised than the boosted. Thank you to Grant Dixon for compiling and graphing NZ Ministry of Health data, below.

This morning my mask-exempt friend entered a haberdashery shop, whereupon two other potential customers turned and fled. Yesterday she was turned away from a fabric store. I am sure many of you have had similar experiences. The fact of the matter is that almost the whole of the New Zealand population has become subject to fear-based government-sponsored groupthink.

Are we all being conditioned to vote for Jacinda Ardern in next year’s election based on the carefully constructed myth that she is keeping us all safe? We should be keeping our feet on the ground. We should recognise that public relations experts and propaganda promoters are at work full-time, but they are working out of touch with reality.

Meanwhile our whole economy is becoming ever more dysfunctional. As people are too afraid to associate with one another in public, the whole basis of commercial activity is being undermined.

The two large supermarket chains are laughing all the way to the bank. As small businesses are forced to close and their monopoly grows, supermarket prices and profits are entering the stratosphere. Smart individuals are now ordering their vegetables and groceries direct from Australia (as far away from us as Moscow is from London) because they are so much cheaper.

The government is clueless to control this rampant price inflation, along with most things including the pandemic. The public is hoodwinked, queueing fully masked and fully vaccinated to pay through the nose for everyday items without a squeak of dissent.

The ten-year-old son of a friend asked his mother the other day: ‘Which do you think our society is more like – Brave New World or 1984?’ I doubt if either Aldous Huxley or George Orwell could ever have imagined anything so incomprehensibly doublethinking as 2022 New Zealand.

This is the state we have reached through our government’s careful rationing of information and saturation conditioning.

Time we reopened the floodgates of free speech and social media – hold your horses, we might endanger our one source of truth.

May 1, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

The UK Covid Response: A Stool with Three Legs

BY CARL HENEGHAN AND TOM JEFFERSON | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | APRIL 28, 2022

Respiratory viruses are both unpredictable and commonplace. The name of the most well-known one, Influenza, originated in 15th century Italy, and comes from the old Italian expression influenza dei pianeti or influence of the planets. They could not explain its sudden and unaccountable behavior and ascribed its capricious nature to the influence of planets.

However, influenza is just one of the many agents involved in active respiratory infections; there are scores of known ones which give a spectrum of clinical presentations, from a mild cold to severe pneumonia. We have no idea how many agents there are. Since 1970, 1,500 pathogens have been discovered – 70% have come from animals. Some authors report that up to 40% of respiratory infections have no recognised causes.

Over 30 years, we have studied physical interventions, vaccines, and antivirals for registered compounds and ones which never made it to market. In 2014 we encouraged Roche and GSK to give up the business part of their regulatory submissions for their antivirals, opening up a whole new source of clinical study report evidence that is infinitely more reliable and complete than biomedical journal publications.

So when SARS-CoV-2 struck, we watched unfolding events with curiosity. We try to understand the effects of the agent and those of our leaders’ responses. To achieve this, you need reasonably good data.

We are used to wastage, error, and poor quality research underpinning patient care. The influenza field is further affected by flawed science, pandemic conspiracies and political contamination that leads to the inevitable box thinking with the advent of a newly identified agent.

In the UK, like in most other countries, the daily situation briefings delivered by top scientific advisers who we knew had little experience of respiratory virus epidemiology set the pace of the pandemic and the subsequent hysteria.

The briefings were devised to illustrate the seriousness of the COVID-19 situation by presenting running totals of new cases, hospital admissions and deaths. We call this the three-legged stool of the COVID narrative. The stool provided the rationale for an unprecedented level of restrictions on civil liberties and governmental diktats designed to control the unruly populace in the hope of managing – or even eradicating – the agent.

After exploring aggregate data, we looked in-depth into the science of the three legs: Speaking daily, we discussed and analyzed the certainty behind the summary figures and trends presented every night. Finally, we asked ourselves: what props the stool up?

We tried making sense of the various government websites, the relevant papers in biomedical journals, and the tests applied to identify “cases.” We soon understood that the PCR was inappropriately used as a mass screening tool. Its limits were not understood by those reporting its results or those presenting aggregate data.

Even with correct specimen management and a competent laboratory process, a simple PCR test cannot distinguish active cases from those recovering from SARS-CoV-2 infection who are no longer infectious and a danger to no one.

We used our systematic review skills to analyse the studies comparing the culture of SARS-CoV-2, the best indicator of current active infection and infectiousness, with the results of PCR.

Complete viable viruses are necessary for transmission, not the fragments identified by PCR. PCR picks up minute particles which take weeks to be cleared by our immune systems, not complete viruses, so governments were locking up the contagious with the non-contagious.

Misuse of PCR underpinned the whole narrative. Its very high sensitivity and robotic acceptance as a gold standard created the illusion of many more cases (i.e. active infections) than were really present and prompted long quarantines, disrupting society and lives.

Therefore, the first leg of the stool is unstable, made worse by the absolute refusal to link PCR results to the reporting of viral load estimates, which could (coupled with accurate history and thorough epidemiology) give a likelihood of infectivity.

The second leg, attribution of death, was affected by bureaucratic bungling and PCR misuse. We discovered that UK public health bodies had 14 different ways of attributing the role of SARS-CoV-2 to a death. Some totals included deceased who had tested negative. Post-mortem examinations were uncommon, as was independent verification of causes of death. So aggregate attribution of mortality figures was questionable – the second leg started teetering too.

We are currently analyzing the last leg of the stool: hospital capacity. Hospital episodes take time to reconstruct, but they are also underscored by PCR misuse, poor definitions, and confusing messaging. A coherent dataset is unlikely to exist, so we have to piece the puzzle together.

We reported our findings in a series of web reports for a charity and the mainstream media, the only avenues that evade some censorship.

Where did our data come from? From the only section of society which had an idea of what was going on, or at least were asking questions instead of accepting the “rule of six” or supermarket trolley police checks like obedient cattle, the public.

Freedom of Information (FOI) request sites in the UK are sources of amazingly bright questions and bureaucratic and sometimes misleading answers. Here are some examples. Public Health England does not know whether hospitals have a financial incentive to classify an admission episode as COVID-related, so how can they interpret the data?

Some deaths are classified as COVID-related, even though negative. The Department of Health has no idea how many and which of the PCR kits are in use, all with a different performance which has not been standardized. So they were adding apples with trees and hay bales and reporting the consequent nonsense daily.

The power of FOI host websites like WhatDoTheyKnow is immense and underutilized. The questions and responses are public for everyone to see, and most of the public’s questions are pin-sharp.

The FOI ACT provides access to information held by public authorities who are obliged to publish certain information about their activities; and members of the public are entitled to request information from public authorities.

However, the FOI respondents show poor science, bureaucracy, delegation to juniors to respond to “nuisance” questions and a lack of coherent vision – at times, the response is dismissive. Still, there are occasional nuggets of vital information.

Why not set up a similar FOI portal in every country? We think it is the only way to make these people accountable to voters. You can follow our attempts at getting to the bottom of hospital episodes in England, Wales and Northern Ireland by following our correspondence: 1 2 3 4.

The stool’s three legs remain vital to understanding the rationale for restrictions imposed throughout the pandemic.

Conflict of interest statements

TJ’s competing interests are accessible here. CJH holds grant funding from the NIHR, the NIHR School of Primary Care Research, the NIHR BRC Oxford and the World Health Organization for a series of Living rapid review on the modes of transmission of SARs-CoV-2 reference WHO registration No 2020/1077093. He has received financial remuneration from an asbestos case and given legal advice on mesh and hormone pregnancy tests cases. He has received expenses and fees for his media work including occasional payments from BBC Radio 4 Inside Health and The Spectator. He receives expenses for teaching EBM and is also paid for his GP work in NHS out of hours (contract Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust). He has also received income from the publication of a series of toolkit books and for appraising treatment recommendations in non-NHS settings. He is Director of CEBM and is an NIHR Senior Investigator.

Authors

Carl Heneghan is Director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and a practising GP. A clinical epidemiologist, he studies patients receiving care from clinicians, especially those with common problems, with the aim of improving the evidence base used in clinical practice.

Tom Jefferson, Department for Continuing Education, University of Oxford, UK

May 1, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Parsing the “data” from Moderna’s selective leaks to the press about its failed clinical trial in kids under 6

The shot made no difference against Covid but it does cause myocarditis and came with a 15% to 17% adverse event rate. Meanwhile the CDC admits that 74.2% of kids already have natural immunity.

By Toby Rogers | April 30, 2022

On Friday, the NY Times and other stenographers for the cartel breathlessly announced that Moderna has asked the FDA to authorize its junk science mRNA shot in kids under 6. Oh, so that means Moderna submitted an application to the FDA? Well, not exactly. From the article:

“A top official at the company said it would finish submitting data to regulators by May 9.”

Wait, so Moderna is “asking” the FDA to authorize its product but Moderna will not even finish its application for another 10 days!? That’s weird. It’s like a kid asking his teacher for a A+ while his homework assignment is half-finished.

So already we’re seeing serious red flags and we’re not even out of the first paragraph.

Of course it gets worse.

To be clear, there is no data because Moderna has not even finished its application. But Moderna and the White House have been selectively leaking numbers to the press that dutifully prints them without question — and those numbers tell us that Moderna’s clinical trial was a disaster.

I need to provide some background and context and then I’ll get into the particular details about this failed clinical trial in kids.

Moderna applied for Emergency Use Authorization to administer its mRNA shot to adolescents 12 to 17 years old back on June 10, of 2021. But the application has been held up ever since. Why? Myocarditis. From the Wall Street Journal :

The Food and Drug Administration is delaying a decision on authorizing Moderna Inc.’s mRNA Covid-19 vaccine for adolescents to assess whether the shot may lead to heightened risk of a rare inflammatory heart condition, according to people familiar with the matter.

Moderna has at least two big problems in giving this shot to teenagers:

1) The dose they are giving to teenagers is the same dose as that given to adults — 100 mcg of mRNA — which is four times the amount in the Pfizer shot given to adults (25 mcg). So the Moderna shot is great at generating antibodies that target the spike protein of the original Wuhan lab leak strain. But some of that mRNA can migrate to the heart and generate myocarditis as well. Remember, Pharma’s capture of the FDA is so extreme, they should just be able to write “Iz Gud!” on a paper napkin and the FDA will approve it — as they did with Pfizer’s application to inject kids 5 to 11 — in spite of ZERO evidence supporting this use. So if the FDA has held up Moderna’s application in teens for nearly a year, the myocarditis signal must be truly terrifying.

2) Nordic countries are slightly less corrupt than the United States. Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway have all suspended the use of the Moderna mRNA shot in teenagers because its leads to myocarditis. (Finland and Sweden even suspended its use in men under 30 years old.) Even the criminally corrupt European Medicines Agency acknowledged that both Pfizer and Moderna mRNA shots lead to myo- and pericarditis and added a warning to the product insert.

Okay what do we know about Moderna’s clinical trial in kids under 6?

Back on March 23, Moderna put out a press release claiming that:

vaccine efficacy in children 6 months to 2 years was 43.7% and vaccine efficacy was 37.5% in the 2 to under 6 years age group.

The NY Times of course printed that like it was a clay tablet handed directly from God to Moses just as they printed the “90% to 100% effective(TM)” lie in connection with the clinical trial in adults. By now everyone knows that the actual vaccine effectiveness is zero or even negative after 6 months.

Sane people pointed out that vaccine efficacy of 43% and 37% are BELOW the 50% threshold required for FDA authorization. It’s not clear why the geniuses at Moderna did not realize this — perhaps they just wanted to rub everyone’s noses in the sheer criminality of their enterprise?

But somewhere between March 23 and last Friday, Moderna staff got the message so they did what they always do, they just manipulated the data. From the NY Times :

Moderna said Thursday the vaccine appeared to be 51 percent effective against symptomatic infection among those younger than 2, and 37 percent effective among those 2 to 5.

Okay first off, lol that they still cannot get the number above 50% in kids 2 to 5 even when they are just straight up lying about the numbers. But how did they convert 43% to the magical 51% in kids 0 to 2? They simply deleted data that they did not like:

Those results were slightly better than the ones Moderna previously released for children under 2. The company said that was because the second time, the firm excluded infections that had not been confirmed with a P.C.R. test analyzed in a laboratory.

Let’s be clear — this is Moderna’s clinical trial. They control the whole process. If you’re a study participant who is having a heart attack in the middle of the night and call 911 and go to the hospital — they kick you out of the clinical trial for not seeing their doctors and following their protocol. So Moderna is the one who makes the decision as to whether to use “a P.C.R. test analyzed by a laboratory.” To now exclude (without any valid justification) infections that made their clinical trial look bad is gross scientific misconduct. The Moderna application, when/if it is submitted 10 days from now, should be rejected immediately because of this misconduct.

While the clinical trials in kids were failing, Pfizer and Moderna were running a half-hearted campaign to pressure the FDA to approve these shots in kids under 5 — in spite of zero data showing benefit and considerable evidence showing harms. The attempts were pathetic and included hashtags on social media like #immunizeunder5 that were likely only used by people taking money from these monsters. But of course the stenographers eagerly reported on this milquetoast effort and one of the talking points is, ‘well, okay, the shots do not meet the required 50% FDA threshold but some protection is better than none(TM) so please authorize my right to genocide my kids.’

Well, it turns out, these shots do NOT even offer “some protection”:

Moderna’s clinical trial data showed that the antibody response of the youngest children compared favorably with that of adults ages 18 to 25, meeting the trial’s primary criterion for success. Although the trial was not big enough to measure vaccine effectiveness…

What!? “The trial was not big enough to measure vaccine effectiveness.” Isn’t that the whole point of a clinical trial!? So Moderna (and the NY Times ) are saying that the clinical trial made ZERO difference on Covid-related health outcomes including infection, hospitalization, ICU visits, or deaths, because the SARS-CoV-2 virus is not a threat to healthy children in this age group — which we have been pointing out for months.

So how does Moderna try to finesse it? They look at antibodies in the blood, not health outcomes in the real world. They call it “immunobridging”. As I explained at length back in October, this is NOT a scientifically valid way to use immunobridging (claiming likely future health outcomes from antibodies alone when the trial showed no such thing). Immunobriding is only valid if one has clinically validated correlates of protection and conditions prevent one from conducting a proper RCT (neither of which apply in this case).

Even the hand-picked yes-men and women on the CDC’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) acknowledged at their last meeting that they do NOT have “correlates of protection” that would enable them to estimate health outcomes from antibody measures. Eric Rubin (Editor-in-Chief of the NEJM ) even stated, “We know what kind of antibody response can be generated, we just don’t know if it works.”

So Moderna is asking the FDA to authorize its mRNA shot in kids under 6 based on antibodies alone even though every member of the FDA’s VRBPAC acknowledges that antibodies tell you absolutely nothing about likely health outcomes.

(In fact, new evidence suggests that mRNA shots suppress the body’s innate ability to generate anti-N antibodies.)

What about side effects?

Side effects were at a similar level as those from previously approved pediatric vaccines, with fevers in 15 percent to 17 percent of the children, Moderna said.

Any shot with an adverse event rate over 1% should not be authorized. To authorize a shot with a 15 to 17% adverse event would be batsh*t insane.

Furthermore, we know that Moderna and Pfizer make cases of disability and death in their clinical trials disappear — so the actual adverse event rate is surely even higher than 15% to 17%.

Making this nightmare complete, the CDC acknowledged on April 26, 2022, that 74.2% of children ages 0 to 11 are already naturally immune to Covid-19 because of prior exposure. The 74.2% number came from February, so given the rate of increase at the time, by now nearly 100% of children ages 0 to 11 likely already have natural immunity which is superior to artificial vaccine immunity. There is no emergency in this population that would justify an emergency use authorization of this useless toxic product.

So to recap this painful saga:
• Moderna shots cause myocarditis and pericarditis which is why Moderna has not been able to get authorization to inject mRNA into teenagers.
• Moderna shots make no difference in connection with Covid-19 in this age group.
• Moderna shots come with at least a 15% to 17% adverse event rate.
• Nearly all children in this age group are already naturally immune so there is no emergency that would justify an emergency use authorization.

This is not hard to figure out. In a sane world this application would be dead on arrival, whenever Moderna gets around to actually turning in its application. Any reporter worth his/her salt should be ridiculing Moderna’s weird mix of hubris, incompetence, bad “data”, and malevolence. But our country, its “public health” agencies, and the mainstream media are run by Insane Nazi Clowns. I imagine many bougiecrats will drown in their own tears if they are not allowed to genocide their own kids with this shot (and then they’ll celebrate their sacrifice and take selfies with their kids in the ICU when the myocarditis kicks in, proclaiming #getvaccinated). Of course bougiecrats can already get this shot for their kid off label, so my hunch is that it’s really your kids who they want to genocide.

In future articles I’ll have additional thoughts about how we push back. In the meantime, this continues to be our best play and I encourage all of us to just get into the habit of contacting 25 people at the FDA every day to tell them to REJECT both the Moderna and Pfizer applications to inject mRNA into little kids.

May 1, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Northern Ireland faces loss of 1 million sheep and cattle to meet climate targets

By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | April 30, 2022

imageNot only does agriculture account for a large slice of NI’s emissions (and Ireland’s too), it also accounts for a lot of its GDP, directly and indirectly.

There is a reason why Ireland is dominated by pastoral rather than arable farming. It’s because most of the land is unsuitable for growing of crops, certainly to a profitable extent. Much of the land is rocky and the climate is far too wet. That was why Ireland was so reliant on potatoes at the time of the Great Famine.

Currently only 4% of N Ireland’s farmland is arable.

Although farm labour only accounts for 7% of the country’s labour force, many more depend on the rural economy. Altogether the rural population makes up about 40% of the total in N Ireland. Destroying a large part of farming sector there would be catastrophic for the rural sector. Replacing the meat and dairy sector with, for instance, potatoes would decimate incomes and lead to mass migration out of the countryside.

Perhaps the most shocking part of the Guardian’s report is the reaction of Chris Stark, who is more interested in his modelling than in people’s lives. It also raises the question of just how all of this will be enforced. Farmers certainly are not going to give up willingly.

Shades of the infamous Soviet Land Reforms?

April 30, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | Leave a comment

Dr. Drew relies on Rumble after YouTube censorship

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | April 30, 2022

Celebrity physician Dr. Drew Pinsky streamed on Rumble on Friday after getting slapped with a 7-day suspension on YouTube.

“Despite my vocal support of vaccines and science, YouTube deleted my #2 most-viewed show, put a strike on my channel & locked it for a week… again,” he wrote on Twitter. “Thankfully @RumbleVideo supports free speech. Watch @AskDrDrew LIVE at 4 pm PT.”

The video that led to the suspension featured the doctor talking about the effects of Covid vaccines. In the episode that streamed on Rumble, Dr. Drew’s wife Susan said their kids aged over 20 experienced side effects after receiving booster shots.

The video on Rumble was captioned: “Should ‘Big Tech’ have the power to censor debates between doctors … and how can social platform moderators correctly identify ‘medical misinformation’ unless they are doctors themselves?”

Dr. Drew’s YouTube channel has over 58,000 subscribers. On Rumble, his channel has already attracted over 113,000 subscribers.

April 30, 2022 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Former colony resists direct UK rule

The acting premier of the British Virgin Islands, Dr. Natalio Wheatley.
Samizdat | May 1, 2022

The acting premier of the British Virgin Islands has voiced deep “concerns” over London’s plans to assume direct governance of the Caribbean territory, following the arrest of its leader in a US drug sting operation, and a highly-critical report into alleged systemic corruption.

On Friday, shortly before the premier of the British Virgin Islands, Andrew Fahie, appeared before a US judge on charges of cocaine smuggling and money laundering, a commission of inquiry led by Judge Sir Gary Hickinbottom hurriedly published its final report, urging the UK to dissolve the islands’ elected government, suspend their constitution, and impose direct rule for at least two years.

“What this would mean in real terms is that there would no longer be elected representatives who represent the people of the districts and the territory in the house of assembly where laws are made for our society,” said Natalio Wheatley, who assumed the post of acting premier after Fahie’s arrest.

London already dispatched a Foreign Office minister, Amanda Milling, to meet the territory’s Governor James Rankin and other senior figures and discuss the terms of direct rule, ahead of a formal decision expected next week.

The acting BVI premier acknowledged “very serious matters highlighted in the report, which spanned successive Administrations,” and did not question the British Crown representative’s authority and responsibility to maintain order – but said the proposed reforms “can be achieved without the partial or full suspension of the constitution,” under already existing emergency powers.

“I urge you the public to read the report with an objective eye in terms of strengthening our systems of Government under a democratic framework of governance, as opposed to draconian measures that would set back the historical constitutional progress we have made as a people.”

Hickinbottom’s commission was established in 2021, amid claims of corruption and wasteful government spending – as well as rumors that the island leadership was engaging in drug trafficking. According to The Guardian, the British government was aware of the US undercover investigation, and decided to “rush out” the 1,000-page Hickinbottom report after Fahie was arrested.

Named by Christopher Columbus, the Virgin Islands are divided between the UK, the US and the US territory of Puerto Rico. Some 35,000 BVI residents have been British citizens since 2002. While they enjoy a limited self-governance under a 2007 constitution, the string of islands is officially designated as one of the British overseas territories, called crown colonies prior to 1983.

April 30, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

Strike off the truth tellers? No, strike out Whitty & Co!

By Angus Dalgleish | TCW Defending Freedom | April 30, 2022

THE recent announcement from the General Medical Council that doctors face being struck off for spreading fake news on vaccines and lockdowns is somewhat frightening given the recent experience of Dr Sam White, a GP in Hampshire. It has a chilling Orwellian overtone to it.

It seems to imply that fake news is anything not approved by the Government and any of its agencies such as Public Health England and the NHS plus the mainstream media, who have been bribed throughout the pandemic with lucrative advertising contracts.

It assumes that ideas and speculation from discredited sources such as Neil Ferguson and Sage were correct and accepted by the senior medical officers such as Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance, with all other inputs ignored or treated with contempt. Many of us suggested that as Covid was an airborne virus which affected mainly the old and those with other medical conditions it should be treated as such. This was based on knowledge accrued from years of treating such unknown upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) which involves correcting the hideously low levels of vitamin D3 in the population and treating symptoms with regular gargling of aspirin and mouthwash and intranasal sprays. In short, vitamin D3 and topical anti-inflammatory medicines abort colds and flu when given early and frequently.

Why was this not made official policy? I observed severe Covid symptoms melt with such a regimen in many friends and colleagues.

Secondly, why were doctors not allowed to give dexamethasone, which is known to be life-saving in cases of lung inflammation? No, we had to wait for a trial to tell us it worked. A colleague calculated that 4,000 to 5,000 patients died unnecessarily through this decision, which the Chief Medical Officer has to own.

Also why did they stamp on any original idea such as ivermectin, which was dismissed as ‘worm treatment for horses’ when it clearly has some benefit in some Covid cases?

What I am driving at here is that common sense can be classified as fake news by the ever-increasingly power-crazed authorities. The greatest example of this ill-informed madness was the decision to enforce lockdowns not once but twice. It has been calculated that lockdown probably averted 200 Covid deaths but the advisers took no account of the effects on other conditions by denying screening and early treatment of cancer, heart attacks, strokes, not to mention the infliction of severe mental health problems and chronic stress (I personally know of four suicides, two of them medical colleagues). This is before we get on to the big picture – the destruction of young lives, education and the economy.

For what? Sweden refused to follow the lockdown route and not a single child lost a day’s education.

Our experts who felt entitled to tell us what to do and conspired to denigrate those of us with an alternative take such as Professor Sunetra Gupta, myself and other Great Barrington declarants. They cruelly derided Sweden’s state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell for refusing to back lockdown, with 2,000 of his own condemning him.

It has now been accepted by all bar the CCP in China that lockdown was an absolute and avoidable disaster. Yet those of us who were right would be persecuted and prosecuted and struck off by this new emanation from the GMC. Dr Sam White also thought that masks were a waste of time, something every one of the government advisers has agreed with at some time, but they were insisted upon by the Department of Fear, Intimidation and Control of the Population.

Next comes the ‘vaccine’ project. In spite of our warning that a good vaccine needs a powerful T-cell adjuvant, and that the 80 per cent of the spike which mimicked human sequences and was likely to induce side-effects should be omitted, we were dismissed as not important or eminent enough to heed. The vaccines that the establishment backed were experimental medicines designed to reduce morbidity and death in the older population and of course to save the NHS.

So why were they imposed on the whole population without testing to see if they were needed? Even the BCG vaccine was given only to non-tuberculin reactors after a test.

My colleagues started to see serious reactions especially in those below 55 years, which have now been accepted to be real, such as blood clots, strokes, heart inflammation and death. Our original report highlighted the sequence in the spike similar to a neurological protein and severe neurological damage has now been officially recognised. For pointing this out early we were accused of being anti-vaxxers. No, we were not! We were just trying to save people from serious side-effects from a disease with an 0.085 per cent fatality rate.

Presumably the GMC would now strike off anyone, such as Sam White, trying to do the best for their patients. No, they should be looking at the real culprits for this mayhem and whether they had the skills and experience to make these decisions (they did not).

Bizarrely, in this brave new world they were given knighthoods.

April 30, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Following the Science is Impossible and Stupid

Institutional science follows politics; it will always endorse central regime policies

eugyppius | April 30, 2022

During the pandemic, Germany closed schools on a wider scale and for a longer duration than most other places in the civilised world. I was recently reminded of how our government came to embrace these extreme policies. The story is very revealing:

It began with the strange decision of state media to elevate Christian Drosten at Berlin Charité to national prominence, by granting him the Coronavirus Update podcast on 26 February 2020. The WHO had just endorsed lockdowns two days before, and various countries were acquiring new Corona tsars – random virus wizards who would become the face of containment policy to panicking domestic audiences. Every day, Drosten’s banal podcast interviews were reported breathlessly across the German media, as if they meant anything.

It’s important to remember that Drosten is a virologist. He’s not a statistician, and for what it’s worth, he’s not a public health expert either. He studies how very small proteins work and how they interact with human cells. Nevertheless, Drosten had (or claimed to have) a wide range of opinions on matters outside of his field, including the question of whether closing schools would slow down SARS-2.

At first, Drosten said that he didn’t think this would accomplish very much. Like everyone else of his ilk, he had an early history of saying basically correct and sensible things before he went crazy. On 11 March 2020, he went home and read this paper on Nonpharmaceutical Interventions Implemented by US Cities During the 1918–1919 Influenza Pandemic. It wasn’t his field; his assessment of its analysis is worth no more than mine or yours. But after reading it, he decided that actually closing schools would be a great idea, especially when used in combination with other interventions, such as banning mass gatherings. This was wind in the sails of hystericists like Markus Söder, minister president of Bavaria. And so we closed our schools, and our kids endured months of social isolation and mental anguish, because Drosten read a thing and had a brilliant idea.

But, that’s only the official story. It may be vastly worse than that. I really doubt, for example, that Drosten’s ridiculous podcast was a spontaneous programming idea by Norddeutscher Rundfunk. I suspect, instead, that there’s a reason lockdowns and Corona tsars went together in those early days. Primary was the political or bureaucratic decision to do all this crazy stuff, in the absence of any evidence aside from some dodgy numbers out of Wuhan. Thus the genius smart guys who run our institutions had to find celebrity virus astrologers, who could become the public face of novel policies and provide a simulacrum of science for the politicians to pretend they were following. It’s even odds, whether Drosten really did change his mind because of a paper he read one night; or whether it was rather the political or bureaucratic faction behind Drosten that changed their minds and gave him a paper or two to read.

Science isn’t some objective reasonable force outside of politics. Scientists spend most of their careers chasing government grant funding, and fighting for appointments and promotions in government-funded university systems. Science follows politics, and nobody knows this as much as the disingenuous politicians who claim that their policies are subordinate to scientific findings.

April 30, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Kickbacks, Corruption & Scandal: The History of the CDC

By Michael Bryant | OffGuardian | April 29, 2022

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was founded in 1946 as a backwater quasi-governmental agency with a negligible budget and a handful of employees tasked with a simple mission: “prevent malaria from spreading across the nation.”

Seventy-five years later it has metastasized into a multi-billion dollar bureaucratic behemoth that oversees and controls virtually all aspects of public health programs, policies and practices across the United States.

The CDC is the primary US national public health agency tasked with “protecting America from health, safety and security threats” and advertises that it will “increase the health security of our nation.”

Guidelines and recommendations by the CDC set the standards for mainstream medicine in America and are considered the de facto rules by which public health departments and most institutions throughout the country must operate.

The CDC’s pledge to the American people vows that it will:

“be a diligent steward of the funds entrusted to our agency, base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data that is derived openly and objectively and place the benefits to society above the benefits to our institution.”

This high-minded mission statement gives the impression that the CDC will, above all else, work diligently and honestly to protect the health of all Americans. A careful review of the CDC’s history and current mode of operation indicate a stark contrast between these noble words and how the CDC actually functions.

OZ HAS SPOKEN

“The CDC has enormous credibility among physicians, in no small part because the agency is generally thought to be free of industry bias. Financial dealings with bio-pharmaceutical companies threaten that reputation.”
Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine

In the mainstream media vortex, questioning the state religion of CDC decrees and guidelines lands one firmly in the camp of the “conspiracy-minded,” accused of practicing sorcery or some manner of medieval medical quackery.

In the minds of many Americans the CDC represents the final word on “all matters health-related.” To question this omnipotent bureaucratic agency is to challenge sacred health commandments and cast doubt on the medical establishment itself.

The widely accepted belief about the CDC holds that it is a governmental agency which functions outside of health industry relationships and consequently operates free from the monied interests of the health management sector. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Despite this reputation, further scrutiny reveals that the CDC falls far short of its stated purpose. As the scope and budget of this agency has ballooned over the years, including a war chest of corporate contributions, we have to ask ourselves, “Does the CDC fulfill its mission statement of protecting public health or is it now just another bloated quasi-governmental agency that works on behalf of its donors?”

Contrary to its disclaimer that “the CDC does not accept commercial support”, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) reported, in 2015, that “the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly.”

A petition filed in 2019 by several watchdog groups contends that the CDC’s assertion that it is free from influence peddling and has “no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products” are “indisputably false.”

The petition goes a step further asserting that the CDC, “knows the claims are false, because it has procedures to address from whom and under what circumstances it accepts millions of dollars from contributors, including manufacturers of commercial products.”

This allegation is supported by multiple examples from the CDC’s own Active Program’s Report.

For instance, Pfizer Inc. contributed $3.435 million since 2016 to the CDC Foundation for a program on the prevention of Cryptococcal disease.

Programs like these became commonplace as early as 1983 largely due to Congressional authorization which allowed the CDC to accept “external” gifts:

made unconditionally… for the benefit of the [Public Health] Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions.”

Despite the caveat that these donations must be geared towards public health, the reality is these contributions come with strings attached. As noted earlier in the BMJ report, Pharma funds given to the CDC for specific projects return to Pharma pockets via marketing and sales.

The spigot of funding initiated through Congressional permission would open full blast a decade later, with the creation of the CDC Foundation.

THE CDC FOUNDATION

The CDC Foundation was created by Congress in 1992 and incorporated two years later to “mobilize philanthropic and private-sector resources.”

Once established, the CDC Foundation became the primary pass-through mechanism utilized by a cornucopia of corporate interests to exert influence over various aspects of the CDC. Large pharmaceutical companies contributed millions of dollars each year to the “separate, philanthropic CDC Foundation.“

The CDC Foundation would then “donate philanthropically” Big Pharma contributions to the CDC itself. This sleight of hand ensured the CDC could maintain they never accepted money directly from Big Pharma.

A decade after its inception the Foundation had quickly raised $100 million in private funds “to enhance the CDC’s work.”

Some have argued that once this avalanche of monied interests was unleashed, the agency itself was transformed into the primary marketing arm of the Pharmaceutical Industry creating a hornet’s nest of ethics violations, outright corruption and opened up a slew of questions as to who the CDC actually works for.

Was the CDC Foundation truly established as a philanthropic enterprise or as a way to conceal conflicts of interest?

Did this massive influx of corporate cash cede control of the CDC to the medical and pharmaceutical industry and their financiers, allowing them to control the direction of “public” health policy?

Would business oriented, for-profit medical programs, using the CDC’s imprimatur, come to dominate public health policy?

Those questions seemed to have their answer in the CDC Foundation’s donor list which reads like a ‘Who’s Who’ of pandemic profiteers and philanthropic mercenaries.

Major sources of cash for the Foundation include the GAVI Alliance, Bloomberg Philanthropies, Fidelity Investments, Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust, Microsoft Corporation, Imperial College London, Johns Hopkins University, Google, Facebook, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Johnson & Johnson Foundation and the omnipresent ‘do-gooders’ at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

INTERNAL PROBLEMS

In 2016 a group of concerned senior scientists from within the CDC wrote a letter to then CDC Chief of Staff Carmen Villar alleging that the CDC “is being influenced and shaped by outside parties… [and this] is becoming the norm and not the rare exception.”

The transgressions cited in that letter include: “questionable and unethical practices,” “cover up of inaccurate screening data” and “definitions changed and data cooked to make the results look better than they were.”

The scientists went on to note that the CDC, “essentially suppressed [findings] so media and/or Congressional staff would not become aware of the problems” and “CDC staff [went] out of their way to delay FOIAs and obstruct any inquiry.”

The indictment also claimed that CDC representatives had “irregular relationships” with corporate entities that suggested direct conflicts of interest.

While criticisms of the CDC have increased in recent years, a look back at their history reveals a long list of misconduct and questionable practices.

SCANDALS ‘R’ US

As far back as 1976 the CDC was creating mass medical terror campaigns in order to procure increased funding and justify mass vaccination programs. The infamous 1976 swine flu scandal sought to inoculate 213 million Americans for a pandemic that didn’t exist. By the time the program collapsed in late 1976, 46 million Americans were needlessly injected– despite the knowledge that neurological disorders were associated with the vaccines. This resulted in thousands of adverse events including hundreds of incidents of Guillain-Barre Syndrome.

This deception was meticulously exposed by Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes.

At the onset of the mass vaccination program, Dr. David Sencer – then head of the CDC – when pushed on national TV, admitted there had only been “several [swine flu] cases reported worldwide and none confirmed.” When asked if he had encountered “any other outbreaks of swine flu anywhere in the world”, he bluntly answered, “No.”

The program moved forward.

In contrast to the CDC’s publicly stated position as “protector of public health,” this type of misconduct would become standard operating procedure and serve as the template for future invented pandemics.

A growing rap sheet of scandals would come to define the CDC’s existence.

  • In 1999 the CDC was accused of misspending $22.7 million appropriated for chronic fatigue syndrome. Government auditors said they could not determine what happened to $4.1 million of that money and the CDC could not explain where the money went.
  • In 2000, the agency essentially lied to Congress about how it spent $7.5 million that had been appropriated for research on the hantavirus. Instead the CDC diverted much of that money into other programs. “One official said the total diverted is almost impossible to trace because of CDC bookkeeping practices, but he estimated the diversions involved several million dollars.”
  • In 2009, in the midst of the now infamous H1N1 swine flu hoax the CDC was forced to recall 800,000 doses of swine flu vaccine for children for a pandemic that never materialized.
  • In 2010 Congress discovered that the CDC “knowingly endangered DC residents regarding lead in the drinking water.” A Congressional report found that the CDC did not properly warn residents of high levels of lead in the DC drinking water and “left the public health community with the dangerous and wrong impression that lead-contaminated water is safe for children to drink.”
  • In 2016 The Hill reported on two scandals at the CDC. One involved the “cover up” of “the poor performance of a women’s health program called WISEWOMAN.” The allegations asserted that within the program, “definitions were changed and data ‘cooked’ to make the results look better than they were” and the CDC actively suppressed this information.
  • The other scandal involved ties between Coca-Cola and two ‘high-ranking’ CDC officials. The two scientists were accused of manipulating studies about the safety of sugar laden soft drinks. Two days after these connections were revealed one of the accused CDC scientists retired.

These scandals were brought to light by the CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research, or CDC SPIDER.

As part of their statement these scientists remarked:

our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests…. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception.”

Their complaints were filed anonymously “for fear of retribution.”

Another dodgy, yet textbook, example of the incestuous nature of Big Pharma’s Revolving Door was the case of former CDC commander Julie Gerberding. As director of the CDC from 2002 to 2009 Gerberding, “shepherded Merck’s highly controversial and highly profitable Gardasil vaccine through the regulatory maze.”

From there she moved on to a cozy and highly profitable position as Merck’s vaccine division president and curiously lucky enough to cash in her Merck stock holdings at opportune times.

Another in a series of collusion scandals hit the CDC in 2018 when director Brenda Fitzgerald was forced to resign as she was caught buying stock in cigarette and junk food companies, the very companies the CDC regulates.

THE CDC AND THE VACCINE INDUSTRY

Although the CDC does not regulate the pharmaceutical industry, the agency’s policies and recommendations have profound implications for drug makers. Nowhere is this more apparent than national vaccination policy- in particular the CDC Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule.

Despite pushing the world’s most aggressive vaccination campaign the facts on the ground show a decidedly different reality than CDC advertisements would lead us to believe on the efficacy of this campaign.

With the expanded vaccine schedule no demonstrable positive returns in children’s health outcomes have accompanied the windfalls to the pharmaceutical industry. Chronic disease in American children has skyrocketed from 6% to 54% in the past 40 years and the United States holds the lamentable distinction of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world.

Some point out that the CDC currently operates as chief vaccine sales and marketing agent for Big Pharma buying, selling and distributing vaccines even as the agency has direct conflicts of interest by holding multiple patents on vaccines and various aspects of vaccine technologies. Compounding this deceptive state of affairs, the CDC poses as a neutral scientific body that assesses vaccine safety while mandating increased vaccine doses to the American people.

While the CDC does not sell vaccines directly, it does receive royalties from companies who acquire licenses to their technologies.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) plays a major role in this scheme. The 12 member ACIP Committee has extraordinary influence on the health of virtually all US citizens as it is the body tasked with “adding to and/or altering the national vaccine schedule.”

The CDC and various members of this committee, in what can charitably be called ‘conflicts of interest’, currently own and have profited from an array of vaccine patents. These include vaccine patents for Flu, Rotavirus, Hepatitis A, Anthrax, West Nile virus, SARS, Rift Valley Fever, and several other diseases of note.

Other patents held by the CDC encompass various applications of vaccine technologies including Nucleic acid vaccines for prevention of flavivirus infection, aerosol delivery systems for vaccines, adjuvants, various vaccination testing methods, vaccine quality control and numerous other vaccine accessories.

THE CDC AND COVID: THE ROAD TO COVID HELL IS PAVED WITH CDC OBFUSCATIONS

Besides, as the vilest Writer has his Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that if a Lie be believ’d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect. – Jonathan Swift

As the central organization commissioned with “protecting America from health, safety and security threats,” the CDC was presented its most significant assignment in its controversial history when the Covid Crisis of 2020 spread to the shores of the United States.

The CDC would shift into hyperdrive offering up all manner of advice, guidelines, regulations, decrees and laws impacting virtually every aspect of life across the country. Most of these decrees represented radical departures from past epidemiological principles.

During this existential ‘crisis’ the CDC would initiate an extraordinary campaign of rolling and shifting regulations. This onslaught of new “guidelines” included face coverings, social distancing, contact tracing, quarantines and isolation, Covid testing, travel regulations, school closures, business procedures– little of everyday life did not come under the influence and control of the CDC machinery.

No stone was left un-micromanaged— even the mundane task of washing hands was transformed into a 4 page baroque ritual, video included, via CDC guidelines. It seemed the only thing notably omitted from CDC “expert guidelines” during this teachable moment was nutrition and exercise.

CHANGE WITH THE CHANGING SCIENCE™

This onslaught of edicts and definitions shifted on a weekly basis creating a climate of confusion and chaos. When questioned, the CDC would sternly proclaim “the science is settled.”

When politically expedient they reconfigured their protocols artfully asserting “the science evolved.”

Standard definitions became fungible when convenient.

While the most visible and contentious dissembling concerned the efficacy of masks – dozens of comparative studies clearly illustrated their ineffectiveness and harms – there were far more profound and disturbing manipulations emanating from the ever-shifting sands at CDC headquarters.

One of the more egregious examples of CDC duplicity occurred on March 24,2020 when the CDC changed well established protocols on ‘how cause of death’ would now be reported on death certificates, exclusively for COVID-19.

This seemingly benign modification became a watershed moment launching a process by which many deaths would be erroneously coded as U07.1 COVID-19. This led to massive COVID-19 death misattribution, was used to ramp up the fear and used as justification for the assemblage of draconian Covid policies.

Critics have called for a full audit of the CDC noting that, “These changes in data definition, collection, and analysis were made only for Covid” in violation of Federal guidelines. In a statement to Reuters, the CDC said:

it made adjustments to its COVID Data Tracker’s mortality data on March 14 because its algorithm was accidentally counting deaths that were not COVID-19-related.”

Two years after the problematic change in certification, the CDC would commence the process of removing tens of thousands from its “Covid death” toll.

THE COVID VACCINE

As the Covid crisis unfolded, all of the long and winding roads ended up in the same place: experimental mRNA gene therapies which were sold as ‘vaccines’ and advertised as a panacea to extricate the world from this ‘crisis.’ The CDC, as trusted go-to government body and chief marketing representative, was tasked with leading the country to safer shores and peddling Pharma’s latest cash cow to the American public.

To sell these experimental injections the CDC relied on the ever handy marketing mantra of “safe and effective”. Consistent with past maneuverings, CDC communiques on the mRNA injections were chaotic when not outright duplicitous.

Certain problems cropped up almost immediately as it was discovered that this sales pitch was dependent on flawed study designs and data that was clearly massaged and manipulated.

The very same CDC that originally touted Covid injections as being able to “stop transmission” took an abrupt U-Turn admitting they couldn’t.

Once the “vaccine” rollout was in full swing the CDC, true to form, ignored all warning signs.

As early as January 2021 safety signals pointed towards potential dangers of these controversial injections. Adverse reactions were either downplayed or completely ignored. Risk-benefit analysis was also kept off the table even as the data painted a not-so-rosy portrayal of “safe and effective.”

The CDC’s reputation took another hit when it was reported that large swaths of Covid data had been hidden from public scrutiny and independent analysis. This added to the pile of pandemic policy scandals and further tarnished the CDC’s veneer as a reliable public health agency.

POSTSCRIPT

The story of CDC kleptocracy parallels the story of contemporary US government institutions. From its humble beginnings as an agency with a mission to manage the swamp, it has degenerated into a bloated bureaucracy that has become a full fledged member of the swamp.

That the CDC isn’t telling the truth to Americans on important matters of public health is in plain sight. It is no surprise that polls show public confidence in the CDC plummeting and, in the mind’s of many, the agency’s once honorable bubble has burst.

Accusations of CDC corruption no longer exist exclusively in the skeptical minds of government critics; they have become commonplace denunciations backed by mountains of easy-to-access evidence. No conspiracy is needed as a litany of scandals have come to characterize ‘business as usual’ at the CDC.

“Can we trust the CDC?”

To find the answer ask a different question.

“Who owns the CDC?”

Michael Bryant is a freelance journalist/activist and researcher who presently focuses primarily on issues surrounding health freedom. His work has appeared on HealthFreedomDefense.org

April 30, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Vaccine Rollout Correlates With 25% Spike in Cardiac Arrest Emergency Calls for Young Adults, Study Finds

By Will Jones | The Daily Sceptic | April 29, 2022

Emergency calls for cardiac arrest and acute coronary syndrome in young people in Israel were significantly associated with the vaccine rollout, both first and second doses, spiking 25% higher than in earlier years, but not with COVID-19 prevalence, a study in the Nature journal Scientific Reports has found.

Using data from the Israel National Emergency Medical Services (EMS) from 2019 to 2021, the study looked at the volume of cardiac arrest and acute coronary syndrome EMS calls in the 16-39 year-old population. It found an increase of over 25% in both call types during January-May 2021, compared with 2019-2020, but no significant increase in calls correlating with COVID-19 infection rates.

The main finding of this study concerns with increases of over 25% in both the number of CA [cardiac arrest] calls and ACS [acute coronary syndrome] calls of people in the 16-39 age group during the COVID-19 vaccination rollout in Israel (January-May, 2021), compared with the same period of time in prior years (2019 and 2020). Moreover, there is a robust and statistically significant association between the weekly CA and ACS call counts, and the rates of first and second vaccine doses administered to this age group. At the same time there is no observed statistically significant association between COVID-19 infection rates and the CA and ACS call counts. This result is aligned with previous findings which show increases in overall CA incidence were not always associated with higher COVID-19 infections rates at a population level, as well as the stability of hospitalisation rates related to myocardial infarction throughout the initial COVID-19 wave compared to pre-pandemic baselines in Israel. These results also are mirrored by a report of increased emergency department visits with cardiovascular complaints during the vaccination rollout in Germany as well as increased EMS calls for cardiac incidents in Scotland.

While several studies have found severe myocarditis to be a rare adverse effect of the vaccines, the study authors note that myocarditis is often missed, and in fact has been found to be likely responsible for 12-20% of unexpected deaths in adults under 40 in normal times.

Myocarditis is a particularly insidious disease with multiple reported manifestations. There is vast literature that highlights asymptomatic cases of myocarditis, which are often underdiagnosed, as well as cases in which myocarditis can possibly be misdiagnosed as acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Moreover, several comprehensive studies demonstrate that myocarditis is a major cause of sudden, unexpected deaths in adults less than 40 years of age, and assess that it is responsible for 12-20% of these deaths. Thus, it is a plausible concern that increased rates of myocarditis among young people could lead to an increase in other severe cardiovascular adverse events, such as cardiac arrest (CA) and ACS. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this might not be only a theoretical concern.

The results, shown visually in the following graphs, are unmistakable, with clear corresponding spikes in vaccination numbers and emergency calls.

The study does not look at death rates in the age group, but data elsewhere show a clear spike in deaths during the period.

SPR/CBS

Surely it’s well past time these experimental vaccines (in Israel’s case, Pfizer), rushed to market in record time, are withdrawn for younger people.

April 30, 2022 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »