Aletho News


To Descend Into Totalitarianism or to Rise up and Free Ourselves?

By Rob Slane | The Blog Mire | January 8, 2022

We in Western societies naively imagine we would never descend into Totalitarianism, because such systems are unmistakably evil and we are undeniably good. Not only would we immediately recognise it, but our moral goodness and inestimable courage would see to it that we stopped it before it ever took root.

In reality, however, such systems never arise vowing to deliver evil, but always promising to do good. The Bolsheviks were apparently redressing the plight of the workers against their bourgeois oppressors. The National Socialists were of course restoring the pride of Germany after the ignominies of Versailles and hyperinflation. The theme connecting all such systems is that those propagating them are the self-proclaimed saviours of society, dealing with the problem and the enemy which they themselves have defined, and presenting the cause to the masses not as outright evil, but rather unmitigated good.

In our smugness, we imagine that we could never go along with such systems because we would see from early on the evil intent and — because we’re not evil — would oppose it with all our might. Yet our ability to oppose such a system does not depend on our ability to see the evil from the comfort of our armchairs decades after it reached its hideous fullness. Rather, it depends on our ability to spot Totalitarianism in its fledgling form in our day, and on summoning the courage and resolve to stand against it here and now.

In an address to The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations in New York in 1975, Alexander Solzhenitsyn warned his audience against Western complacency by posing the following questions:

“Can one part of humanity learn from the bitter experience of another or can it not? Is it possible or impossible to warn someone of danger?… But the proud skyscrapers stand on, point to the sky, and say: It will never happen here. This will never come to us. It is not possible here … But do we really have to wait for the moment when the knife is at our throat?”

One of the reasons so few have seen what has really been happening to us over the past two years, is that the idea of a public health crisis being used as cover for the ushering in of a Totalitarian system is just too much for most people to grasp. Yet as Solomon taught us, there is nothing new under the Sun, and Solzhenitsyn spoke of this phenomenon back in his day:

“The essence of Communism is quite beyond the limits of human understanding. It is hard to believe that people could actually plan such things and carry them out. And it is precisely because its essence is beyond comprehension, perhaps, that Communism is so difficult to understand.”

The average person can hardly comprehend an ideology that rose to power talking about doing good by improving the conditions of workers, but in actual fact had an agenda to destroy and then reshape the existing socioeconomic order, which (according to the ideology) absolutely necessitated the ruthless destruction of entire people groups that were an obstacle to this, be they propertied, peasants, or priests. Likewise, most of us simply cannot grasp the idea that a small group of ruthless oligarchs with astronomical levels of wealth and power could be using an apparent public health crisis as cover to destroy and reshape entire societies and economies across the globe in their own hideous image. Such evil, masquerading under the banner of good, cannot be easily comprehended — even though it is taking place right in front of our very eyes.

Yet this inability to comprehend such things is not so much a question of an inability to examine facts and assess the situation, but rather an unwillingness to comprehend it, largely arising from the comfortable state of affairs we have enjoyed for so long. Again Solzhenitsyn, this time in a speech made on BBC radio in 1976, identified this phenomenon, calling it a riddle of human nature that suffering often tends to bring a fierce determination to fight for freedom, whilst untold years of unmolested freedom tends to send a people in the opposite direction:

“How is it that people who have been crushed by the sheer weight of slavery and cast to the bottom of the pit can nevertheless find strength to rise up and free themselves, first in spirit and then in body; while those who soar unhampered over the peaks of freedom suddenly appear to lose the taste for freedom, lose the will to defend it, and, hopelessly confused and lost, almost begin to crave slavery. Or again: Why is it that societies which have been benumbed for half a century by lies they have been forced to swallow find within themselves a certain lucidity of heart and soul which enables them to see things in their true perspective and to perceive the real meaning of events; whereas societies with access to every kind of information suddenly plunge into lethargy, into a kind of mass blindness, a kind of voluntary self deception.”

Access to information? Check! Lethargy? Check! Mass blindness? Check! Voluntary self-deception? Check! All these elements are present with us now. And so as millions pat themselves on the back for doing good during a public health crisis, in reality they have simply facilitated the ability of those intent on drawing a Digital Iron Curtain across society to carry out their aims, thus edging us towards a Totalitarianism system and society that most would recognise as evil if they read about it in an armchair 50 years from now.

Do we really have to wait for the moment when the knife is at our throat before we realise our predicament? I hope and pray to God that the answer is no, and that people will snap out of their lethargy, their blindness, their self-deception. Then together, through God’s grace and power, we can find the strength to rise up and free ourselves — first in spirit and then in body — from the grim future being planned for us and our children.

January 8, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | , | 2 Comments

Bi-partisan coalition urges Biden to resist calls for military action against Russia

Group wants the administration to stick to its pledge of diplomacy, stop NATO expansion, and refuse to send troops to Ukraine.

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos | Responsible Statecraft | January 8, 2022

A coalition of both conservative and progressive foreign policy organizations have delivered a letter to the White House, asking the president to pursue a broad diplomatic path with the Russians in the much-anticipated U.S.-Russia talks on Monday and in NATO meetings later next week.

The letter, which was signed by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, asks the White House to pursue the Minsk agreements which would “demilitarize the eastern Donbas region of Ukraine and guarantee meaningful political autonomy to the region while retaining Ukrainian sovereignty over the area and its borders.” QI fellow Anatol Lieven has detailed the agreement and the promise it would hold for peace in the region here.

De-escalation is key, wrote the signing organizations, which also emphasized the need to stop NATO expansion and resist calls to send U.S. troops to defend Ukraine.

We echo the call by over 100 former U.S. officials and leading scholars who stated that, in addition to addressing urgent security challenges, we must engage in a serious and sustained strategic dialogue with Russia “that addresses the deeper sources of mistrust and hostility” while deterring Russian military aggression. These dialogues must engage with President Putin’s explicit pursuit of “reliable and long-term security guarantees” that would “exclude any further NATO moves eastward and the deployment of weapons systems that threaten us in close vicinity to Russian territory.

Interestingly, reports emerged Friday that suggested that the White House was willing to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Eastern Europe and scale back military exercises in the region — for an equivalent reduction of Russian troops in the area. In an accompanying statement, the White House disputed that Washington was weighing troop cuts.

Read the full letter here.

January 8, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Israel likely behind 1981 bombings of German, Swiss engineering firms, expert claims


ISRAEL’S PRIMARY EXTERNAL INTELLIGENCE agency, the Mossad, was likely behind a series of mysterious bombings in 1981, which targeted German and Swiss engineering firms believed to be aiding the Pakistani nuclear program, according to new exposé by a leading Swiss newspaper. Several bomb attacks targeted a number of engineering firms in Switzerland and what was then West Germany in 1981. Alongside these attacks, there were threatening telephone calls that targeted West German and Swiss engineers.

A previously unknown militant group calling itself the Organization for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in South Asia took responsibility for these actions. Its members mailed a number of political manifestos to the German and Swiss press, and repeatedly issue proclamations via telephone in broken German or English, according to contemporary accounts. Interestingly, the Organization for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in South Asia has never been heard of since.

Now, however, one of Switzerland’s leading newspapers, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ), claims in a new report that the violent actions against German and Swiss scientists and engineering firms were likely undertaken by the Israeli Mossad. In a leading article published on Saturday, the Swiss daily cited “new, previously unseen documents from archives” in Switzerland and the United States, which allegedly shed light on these mysterious attacks.

The report rests partly on the work of Swiss historian Adrian Hänni, who argues that Israeli intelligence was eager to prevent Pakistan from acquiring access to nuclear energy. The prospect of Pakistan becoming the first Muslim-majority nuclear state was viewed by Israel as an “existential threat”, according to Hänni. Additionally, the Mossad had credible information that senior officials in Islamabad worked closely with the Islamic Republic of Iran, one of Israel’s mortal regional enemies. These factors convinced the Israeli leadership of the time to authorize a covert operation against a number of European firms and scientists who were allegedly aiding Islamabad’s pursuit of a nuclear arsenal, according to the NZZ.

January 8, 2022 Posted by | Islamophobia, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mandatory vaccination coming soon in Marin. Your town is next.

By Steve Kirsch | January 8, 2022

Public Health Officer Matt Willis and Deputy Public Health Officer Dr. Lisa Santora speak out on requirements to get boosted. The evidence doesn’t matter and no questions will be tolerated.

Here is synopsis of Marin [county in California] Health meeting from 2 nights ago (from a parent).

Basically, the public health officers do whatever the hell they want, they refuse to answer questions from the audience, and none of this is based on solid science, and nobody can stop them. Welcome to 2022. Coming to your town soon (if not already).

Matt Willis presented charts and graphs. One was very interesting but I couldn’t take a picture in time. The majority infected are vaccinated. I believe the number 504. I believe a thousand in attendance from a source who tried to get in.

Lots of us put in questions but he answered none of them.

After that one chart showing the vaccinated getting infected more the next charts showed how Omicron has gone up and that kind of stuff.

Then Lisa Santora came on and gave the real bad news regarding the quarantine of unvaccinated students and staff and the modified quarantine of vaccinated and boosted. So per Willis you have to be boosted to be considered able to be on modified quarantine and parents have to be boosted to see their kids do sports or perform indoors. And a lot of infected have been boosted too but the efficacy of the vaccine was never called into question.

Our questions were how do you justify continuing quarantine and support for boosting if it doesn’t prevent transmission. If vaccinated and boosted spread the virus equally why are we quarantining unvaccinated or vaccinated without a booster? They never answered our questions.

Lisa Santora was super creepy and said “we expect that all students and staff are vaccinated and get their boosters”

So they prepared us for more variants with possibilities of more boosters. This pandemic keeps them relevant and in power and torturing the rest of us. Vaxxing testing masking again and again. Those are my words.

Willis said the vaccines will be mandatory in July 2022. My understanding is this will be mandated at the school year after the FDA approves the vaccines for kids so how can they even know??

When a kindergartner recently was registering the parent was told vaccines will be mandatory in July 2022. And the trials have not even been done.

CDC and FDA are being sued to release their safety data which they wanted to release in 75 years!! [ Editor’s Note: The FDA was recently ordered to speed up the timetable by 100X at 55,000 pages per month instead of 500 pages per month. ]

January 8, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Is ensuring people’s compliance with future diktats the key reason for the re-imposition of masks in the classroom?

Masking is not normal and should not be normalised

Health Advisory & Recovery Team | January 8, 2022

In the week when the requirement (or is it only a ‘recommendation?) to mask children in the classroom was reinstated, it is worthwhile to consider the likely reasons underpinning the decision to return to a restriction that is both ineffective and harmful. Undoubtedly, there has again been pressure from the education unions for pupils to cover their faces, motivated either by a baseless belief that such a measure will reduce the risk of teachers contracting the virus, or perhaps a desire to further damage Government credibility by causing more disruption in our schools. Whatever their reason, at this juncture it is timely to revisit the range of circumstantial evidence that supports what HART believes to be the most plausible reason for compelling the healthy to wear face coverings: to increase compliance with future COVID-19 restrictions and the vaccination rollout.

Prior to June 2020, public health experts did not endorse masking healthy people in the community as a means of reducing viral transmission. In March 2020, Dr Jenny Harris (England’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer) was unequivocal when she stated, ‘For the average member of the public, masks are really not a good idea’ and that ‘People can put themselves at more risk than less’. North of the border, Professor Jason Leitch (Scotland’s Clinical Director) was equally emphatic when – in April 2020 – he said, ‘The global evidence is masks in the general population don’t work’. Strikingly, in December 2020 – several months after mask mandates had been imposed in the UK – the World Health Organisation (WHO) published a document titled, Mask use in the context of COVID-19 that formed the conclusion that, ‘There is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking healthy people in the community’. Many contemporary public figures spread a similar message.

So what changed in 2020 that flipped the public health experts into a pro-mask narrative?

One thing is clear: it was not in response to the advent of robust scientific evidence showing that face coverings significantly reduce viral transmission. On the contrary, a review of 14 controlled studies, published in May 2020, concluded that masks did not significantly lessen the spread of influenza in the community, protecting neither the wearer nor others. Although it is not possible to draw an unequivocal conclusion about the reason for the volte-face, several factors are consistent with masks being deployed primarily to enhance compliance with the Government’s COVID-19 interventions.

Deborah Cohen, a medically-qualified correspondent working for the BBC Newsnight programme, stated (in July 2020) that various sources had informed her that the WHO had recommended masks in response to political lobbying, and when she put this possibility directly to the WHO they did not deny it. Also, in her book, A State of Fear, Laura Dodsworth interviewed Gavin Morgan – an educational psychologist and member of the SPI-B (the behavioural science subgroup of SAGE) – who told her that his antipathy to masks had been nullified by some colleagues in the group who believed they were useful in promoting a sense of ‘solidarity’, strengthening people’s feelings of cohesion in the collective fight against the virus.

Further support for the compliance explanation derives from an examination of the activities of the Government’s behavioural scientists who, throughout the pandemic, have recommended the use of covert psychological ‘nudges’ as a means of promoting people’s acceptance of COVID-19 restrictions and the subsequent vaccine rollout. Masking healthy people (adults and children) significantly enhances two fundamental ‘nudges’ used within this campaign. First, the exploitation of fear to promote compliance with Government diktats has been well documented. Masking people in community settings, as well as being one of the restrictions fuelled by fear, is also a powerful way of perpetuating fear. Acting as a crude reminder that danger is – purportedly – all around, face coverings will also prevent disconfirmation of anxious beliefs, preventing the wearer from concluding that our communities are now safe enough to re-engage with in a normal way. A self-reinforcing restriction; something that would strongly appeal to our ethically-compromised behavioural scientists.

Second, the awareness of ‘norms’ – the prevalent views and behaviour of our fellow citizens – can exert pressure on us all to conform, and this widely-deployed ‘nudge’ is also greatly strengthened by mask wearing. Normative pressure (otherwise known as peer pressure or scapegoating) is less effective in changing the behaviour of the deviant minority if there is no visible indicator of pro-social compliance rooted in communities. A face covering, or lack of one, enables instant recognition of the rule followers and rule breakers, thereby escalating the pressure to comply.

These observations as a whole are consistent with the premise that masking healthy people is primarily a compliance device. Clearly, widespread wearing of face coverings in community settings is an effective way of keeping the British public on board with any future restrictions the state decides to impose in pursuit of its agenda. Would the Government have so easily capitulated to union pressure to re-mask children in the classroom if this was not so?

January 8, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 1 Comment

Turning point

eugyppius | January 8, 2022

Where’s the vaccine mandate they promised us?” whines Daniel Brössler, reporter for the Süddeutsche Zeitung, disappointed because yesterday’s Corona summit of German minister presidents returned nothing but some adjustments to quarantine and sharpened testing rules. The double vaccinated will now have to submit negative tests if they want to eat at restaurants. Markus Söder, lockdown- and vaccine mandate-loving minister president of Bavaria, criticised even these milquetoast restrictions, with some bluster about how he’d already taken a hard line against bars and discos. This is after leading German Corona astrologer, Christian Drosten, used his state media podcast to suggest that Germany should start tolerating some of degree of SARS-2 transmission, and that breakthrough infections among the vaccinated should be considered normal. Such statements, which almost surely reflect sentiments within the coalition government, destroy most of the rationale for ongoing restrictions and vaccine mandates.

Meanwhile, in Austria, the thrice-vaccinated chancellor Karl Nehammer has tested positive for Corona. The news comes as Austria announces they will delay implementing their vaccine mandate by two months. It will now take effect in April, if at all. Gerald Gartlehner, an epidemiologist and sometime governmental adviser, suggested that mandates (or at least their enforcement) might have to be re-evaluated in light of Omicron and the widespread immunity the new variant will elicit across the Austrian population. There is every reason to think that Austria will be past the peak of the Omicron wave in April, and that a majority of Austrians will have SARS-2 antibodies by then.

In the United States, former Biden advisers have published a series of editorials in the Journal of the American Medical Association, arguing that it is time to normalise containment and begin managing SARS-2 as one of various seasonal respiratory infections.

It is obvious that we are at a turning point, even if everyone has yet to realise it – even if France is sharpening vaccine requirements, even if Italy has imposed vaccine mandates for everyone over 50, and even if Canada is for the moment determined to remain a prison state. This is the first time since the Floyd riots in America, that major political leaders and public health authorities have said that preventing Corona can no longer be the highest goal of western society.

It is a commonplace observation, but a true one: Since the vaccines began to fail in August, the vaccinators have been progressing through the proverbial five stages of grief. They spent a lot of time in denial, before becoming very angry and punitive. Then they began bargaining, hoping that SARS-2 would go away after four doses, or after five, with just the right dosing intervals, with a return to double masking, with child vaccinations. Now they appear to be drifting finally into depression and acceptance. They have realised, not a second too soon, that there is nothing to be done [outside of improving personal health and early treatment protocols].

Omicron is a highly contagious variant with immune escape features. The vaccinators can vaccinate all they want, but their vaccines will not stop the waves of infection to come. A lot of the hyperbolic rhetoric about Corona was put about in the hopes that most everyone wouldn’t be infected. They thought they could terrify people for a few years, vaccinate them, and harvest their gratitude for saving them from the worst respiratory virus since SARS. Now, though, it’s clear that everyone will have personal experience with Corona infection, whether or not they are vaccinated. This will destroy popular faith measures, it will erode their confidence in the vaccines, and it will do away with their fear of the virus. Maybe a few people somewhere will still support containment, after two years of heavy restrictions, mandated vaccinations, and infection, but I doubt there will be very many of them. It’s the beginning of the end.

January 8, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

UK Culture Secretary boasts about shadowy “anti-disinformation” unit; “daily we have contact with the online providers”

The unit provides no transparency

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | January 8, 2022

The UK Government’s “disinformation” unit is “working,” the Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries said, after she was challenged by the Labour party who said the shadowy unit shut down last year.

In the UK, both the Conservative and Labour governments support more online censorship.

“It’s not the case, it’s not true; it is there, it is working,” Nadine Dorries said in response to a question this week.

“That work takes place daily, and daily we work to remove content online that is harmful and particularly when it comes to Covid-19, daily we have contact with the online providers.”

Ministers in the UK government created a “disinformation unit” to fight the spread of “false” information about COVID-19. The government felt that people were getting misleading information about the virus on social media.

The disinformation unit included civil servants in Whitehall. They were to work with communication experts and collaborate with social media companies.

At the time, then-Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden said: “Defending the country from misinformation and digital interference is a top priority. As part of our ongoing work to tackle these threats we have brought together expert teams to make sure we can respond effectively should these threats be identified in relation to the spread of Covid-19.

“This work includes regular engagement with the social media companies, which are well placed to monitor interference and limit the spread of disinformation, and will make sure we are on the front foot to act if required.”

The team was supposed to focus on disinformation, which refers to the deliberate spreading of false information for personal gain or “trolling.”

The misleading information the government was concerned about included recommendations of cures that are ineffective or potentially “dangerous” and “false claims” about the origin of the coronavirus.

Social media companies had already begun flagging Covid-related misinformation and directing users to what they deemed reliable sources.

January 8, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

More Children Die From the COVID Shot Than From COVID

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | January 7, 2022

The video above features Collette Martin, a practicing nurse who testified before a Louisiana Health and Welfare Committee hearing December 6, 2021.1,2 Martin claims she and her colleagues have witnessed “terrifying” reactions to the COVID shots among children — including blood clots, heart attacks, encephalopathy and arrhythmias — yet their concerns are simply dismissed.

Among elderly patients, she’s noticed an uptick in falls and acute onset of confusion “without any known etiology.” Coworkers are also experiencing side effects, such as vision and cardiovascular problems.

Martin points out that few doctors or nurses are aware the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) even exists, so injury reports are not being filed. Hospitals also are not gathering data on COVID jab injuries in any other ways, so there’s no data to investigate even if you wanted to. According to Martin:

“We are not just seeing severe acute [short term] reactions with this vaccine, but we have zero idea what any long-term reactions are. Cancers, autoimmune [disorders], infertility. We just don’t know.

We are potentially sacrificing our children for fear of MAYBE dying, getting sick of a virus — a virus with a 99% survival rate. As of now, we have more children that died from the COVID vaccine than COVID itself.

And then, for the Health Department to come out and say the new variant [Omicron] has all the side effects of the vaccine reactions we’re currently seeing — it’s maddening, and I don’t understand why more people don’t see it. I think they do, but they fear speaking out and, even worse, being fired … Which side of history will you be on? I have to know that this madness will stop.”

Martin also states she believes the hospital treatment protocol is killing COVID patients. Doctors agree that it’s “not working,” but that “it’s all we have.” But “that’s simply not true,” she says. “It’s just what the CDC will allow us to give.”

What the VAERS Data Tell Us About COVID Jab Risks

I recently interviewed Jessica Rose, Ph.D., a research fellow at the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge in Israel, about what the VAERS data tell us about the COVID jabs’ risks. As noted by Rose, the average number of adverse event reports following vaccination for the past 10 years has been about 39,000 annually, with an average of 155 deaths. That’s for all available vaccines combined.

The COVID jabs alone now account for 983,756 adverse event reports as of December 17, 2021, including 20,622 deaths3 — and this doesn’t include the underreporting factor, which we know is significant and likely ranges from five to 40 times higher than reported. Most doctors and nurses don’t even know what VAERS is and even if they do, they chose not to report the incidents.

You can’t even compare the COVID shots to other vaccines. They’re by far the most dangerous injections ever created, yet there doesn’t appear to be a cutoff for acceptable harm. No one within the CDC or Food and Drug Administration, which jointly run VAERS, has addressed these shocking numbers. Both agencies outrageously deny that a single death can be attributed to the COVID jabs, which is simply impossible. It’s not statistically plausible.

The FDA and CDC are also ignoring standard data analyses that can shed light on causation. It’s known as the Bradford Hill criteria — a set of 10 criteria that need to be satisfied in order to show strong evidence of causal relationship. One of the most important of these criteria is temporality, because one thing has to come before the other, and the shorter the duration between two events, the higher the likelihood of a causative effect.

Well, in the case of the COVID jabs, 50% of the deaths occur within 48 hours of injection. It’s simply not conceivable that 10,000 people died two days after their shot from something other than the shot. It cannot all be coincidence. Especially since so many of them are younger, with no underlying lethal conditions that threaten to take them out on any given day. A full 80% have died within one week of their jab, which is still incredibly close in terms of temporality.4

Children Risk Permanent Heart Damage

Aside from the immediate risk of death, children are also at risk for potentially lifelong health problems from the jab. Myocarditis (heart inflammation) has emerged as one of the most common problems, especially among boys and young men.

In early September 2021, Tracy Beth Hoeg and colleagues posted an analysis5 of VAERS data on the preprint server medRxiv, showing that more than 86% of the children aged 12 to 17 who report symptoms of myocarditis were severe enough to require hospitalization.

Cases of myocarditis explode after the second shot, Hoeg found, and disproportionally affect boys. A full 90% of post-jab myocarditis reports are males, and 85% of reports occurred after the second dose. According to Hoeg et. al.:6

“The estimated incidence of CAEs [cardiac adverse events] among boys aged 12-15 years following the second dose was 162 per million; the incidence among boys aged 16-17 years was 94 per million. The estimated incidence of CAEs among girls was 13 per million in both age groups.”

No doubt, doctors are seeing an increase in myocarditis, but few are willing to talk about it. In a recent Substack post, Steve Kirsch writes:7

“I just read a comment on my private ‘healthcare providers only’ substack. An estimated100X elevation in rate of myocarditis, but nobody will learn of it since cardiologists aren’t going to speak out for fear of retribution.

His comment was a private conversation he had with a pediatric cardiologist. The cardiologist is never going to say this in public, to the press, or have his name revealed since his first duty is to his family (keeping his job).

If a ‘fact checker’ called the cardiologist, he might either refuse to comment or say ‘I’m seeing somewhat more cases after the vaccine rolled out.’ Here’s the exact comment that was posted to the private substack:

‘Pre-jab, one or two cases per year of myocarditis. Now, half his waiting room. Tells parents they are ‘studying’ the causality. Refers them to infectious disease specialist for discussions on their other children.

Admits he and about 50% of his colleagues know what’s going on but are too terrified to speak out for fear of retaliation from hospitals and state licensing boards.

Other 50% don’t want to know, don’t care and/or are reveling in the cognitive dissonance (like Dr. Harvey [Cohen] at Stanford) and/or letting loose their authoritarian demon. Good luck with these former colleagues of mine. The stench is overpowering.’

… From 1 or 2 cases per year to ‘half his waiting room.’ I don’t know the size of his waiting room, but it’s at least two people since he said ‘half.’ So, the rate has increased by: 250 day per year open/1.5 avg cases per year=166X.”

Myocarditis Is Not a Mild, Inconsequential Side Effect

Together with Dr. Peter McCullough, in October 2021 Rose also submitted a paper8 on myocarditis cases in VAERS following the COVID jabs to the journal Current Problems in Cardiology. Everything was set for publication when, suddenly, the journal changed its mind and took it down.

You can still find the pre-proof on Rose’s website, though. The data clearly show that myocarditis is inversely correlated to age, so the risk gets higher the younger you are. The risk is also dose-dependent, with boys having a sixfold greater risk of myocarditis following the second dose.

While our health authorities are shrugging off this risk saying cases are “mild,” that’s a frightening lie. The damage to the heart is typically permanent, and the three- to five-year survival rate for myocarditis has historically ranged from 56% to 83%.9

Patients with acute fulminant myocarditis (characterized by severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction requiring drug therapy or mechanical circulatory support10) who survive the acute stage have a survival rate of 93% at 11 years, whereas those with acute nonfulminant myocarditis (left ventricular systolic dysfunction, but otherwise hemodynamically stable11) have a survival rate of just 45% at 11 years.12

This could mean that anywhere from 7% to 55% of the teens injured by these shots today might not survive into their late 20s or early 30s. Some might not even make it into their early 20s! How is this possibly an acceptable tradeoff for a virus you have practically zero risk of dying from as a child or adolescent?

Excess Deaths Are Exploding, Including Among Teens

Throughout the pandemic, the COVID jab was held out as the way back to normalcy. Yet, despite mass injections and boosters, excess deaths keep rising. For example, in the week ending November 12, 2021, the U.K. reported 2,047 more deaths13 than occurred during the same period between 2015 and 2019.

COVID-19 cannot be entirely to blame, as it was listed on the death certificates for only 1,197 people. Even more telling is the fact that, since July 2021, non-COVID deaths in the U.K. have been higher than the weekly average in the five years prior to the pandemic. Heart disease and strokes appear to be behind many of the excess deaths, and both are known side effects of the COVID jab.

In a November 28, 2021, Twitter post,14 Silicon Valley software engineer Ben M. (@USMortality) revealed that in the preceding 13 weeks, about 107,700 seniors died above the normal rate, despite a 98.7% vaccination rate. In another example, he used data from the CDC and to show excess deaths rising in Vermont even as the majority of adults have been injected.15

“Vermont had 71% of their entire population vaccinated by June 1, 2021,” he tweeted. “That’s 83% of their adult population, yet they are seeing the most excess deaths now since the pandemic!”

Even more disturbing, British data show deaths among teenagers have spiked since that age group became eligible for the COVID shots.16 Between the week ending June 26 and the week ending September 18, 2020, 148 deaths were reported among 15- to 19-year-olds. Between the week ending June 25, 2021, and the week ending September 17, 2021, 217 deaths occurred in that age group. That’s an increase of 47%!

Deaths from COVID-19 also went up among 15- to 19-year-olds after the shots were rolled out for this age group. Significant concerns have been raised about the possibility that COVID-19 vaccines could worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).17 Is that what’s going on here? As reported by The Exposé, which conducted the investigation:18

“Correlation does not equal causation, but it is extremely concerning to see that deaths have increased by 47% among teens over the age of 15, and COVID-19 deaths have also increased among this age group since they started receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, and it is perhaps one coincidence too far.”

Omicron Poses No Risk to Young People

As noted in a recent analysis by Dr. Robert Malone,19 (who recently got banned from Twitter but can be found on Substack), the risk-benefit ratio of the COVID shot is becoming even more inverted with the emergence of Omicron, as this variant produces far milder illness than previous variants, putting children at even lower risk of hospitalization or death from infection than they were before, and their risk was already negligible.

Malone is currently spearheading the second Physicians Declaration20 by the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists, which has been signed by more than 16,000 doctors and scientists, stating that “healthy children shall not be subjected to forced vaccination” as their clinical risk from SARS-CoV-2 infection is negligible and long term safety of the shots cannot be determined prior to such policies being enacted.

Not only are children at high risk for severe adverse events from the shots, but having healthy, unvaccinated children in the population is crucial to achieving herd immunity.

Shots Double Risk of Acute Coronary Syndrome

Researchers have also found Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 shots dramatically increase biomarkers associated with thrombosis, cardiomyopathy and other vascular events following injection.21

People who had received two doses of the mRNA jab more than doubled their five-year risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the researchers found, driving it from an average of 11% to 25%. ACS is an umbrella term that includes not only heart attacks, but also a range of other conditions involving abruptly reduced blood flow to your heart. In a November 21, 2021, tweet, cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra wrote:22

“Extraordinary, disturbing, upsetting. We now have evidence of a plausible biological mechanism of how mRNA vaccine may be contributing to increased cardiac events. The abstract is published in the highest impact cardiology journal so we must take these findings very seriously.”

AMA Is A-OK With Sacrificing Children

Tragically, it’s not only the CDC and FDA that have been captured by the drug industry and who are sacrificing public health, including the health of our children, in order to further the technocratic Great Reset agenda.

Even the American Medical Association, which is supposed to lobby for physicians and medical students in the U.S. and promote medicine for the betterment of public health, has abandoned all semblance of ethics, transparency and honesty.

In a mid-November 2021 article on the AMA’s website, “COVID-19 Vaccine for Kids: How We Know It’s Safe,”23 contributing news writer Tanya Albert Henry cites data straight from Pfizer’s press release, and then goes on to claim we “know it’s safe” because “younger children see the same side effects as has been seen in adults and teens.” Based on the VAERS data, that should send shivers down parents’ backs.

“The American Academy of Pediatrics is on board with vaccinating this age group, along with the American Academy of Family Physicians and the Pediatrics Infectious Diseases Society, said Dr. Fryhofer, chair-elect the AMA Board of Trustees,” Henry writes.

“Dr. Fryhofer … noted that myocarditis has been a rare occurrence after the second dose of the mRNA vaccines. ‘The observed risk is highest in young males age 12 to 29, but COVID infection can also cause myocarditis,’ she pointed out. ‘For adolescents and young adults, the risk of myocarditis caused by COVID infection is much higher than after mRNA vaccination.’”

Really? Where did Fryhofer get that idea? I’ve not seen any data to back that up, and Henry doesn’t provide any.

What Do the VAERS Data Show?

Research published in 201724 calculated the background rate of myocarditis in children and youth, showing it occurs at a rate of four cases per million per year. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, as of 2020 there were 73.1 million people under the age of 18 in the U.S.25 That means the background rate for myocarditis in adolescents (18 and younger) would be about 292 cases per year.

As of December 17, 2021, looking only at U.S. reports and excluding the international ones, VAERS had received:26

  • 308 cases of myocarditis among 18-year-olds
  • 252 cases among 17-year-olds
  • 226 cases in 16-year-olds
  • 256 cases in 15-year-olds
  • 193 in 14-year-olds
  • 132 in 13-year-olds

In total, that’s 1,475 cases of myocarditis in teens aged 18 and younger — five times the background rate. And again, this does not take into account the underreporting rate, which has been calculated to be anywhere from five to 40.

Meanwhile, the CDC27 claims that, between March 2020 and January 2021, “the risk for myocarditis was 0.146% among patients diagnosed with COVID-19,” compared to a background rate of 0.009% among patients who did not have a diagnosis of COVID-19.

After adjusting for “patient and hospital characteristics,” COVID-19 patients between the ages of 16 and 39 were on average seven times more likely to develop myocarditis than those without COVID.

That said, the CDC stressed that “Overall, myocarditis was uncommon” among all patients, COVID or not. What’s more, only 23.7% of myocarditis patients between the ages of 16 and 24 had a history of COVID-19, so a majority of the cases in that age group were not due to COVID.

We’re also not talking about big numbers in terms of actual COVID infections. The weekly adolescent hospitalization rate peaked at 2.1 per 100,000 in early January 2021, declined to 0.6 per 100,000 in mid-March, and rose to 1.3 per 100,000 in April.28

Using that peak hospitalization rate of 2.1 per 100,000 (or 21 per million) in this age group, and assuming the risk for myocarditis is 0.146% among COVID-positive patients, we get a myocarditis-from-COVID rate among adolescents of 0.03 per million. That’s a far cry from the normal background rate of four cases per million, so the risk of getting myocarditis from SARS-CoV-2 infection is probably quite small.

Now, assuming the COVID hospitalization rate for adolescents is 21 per million, and we have 73.1 million adolescents, we could expect there to be 1,535 hospitalizations for COVID in this age group in a year. If 0.146% of those 1,535 teens develop myocarditis, we could expect 2.2 cases of myocarditis to occur in this age group each year, among those who come down with COVID.

In summary, based on CDC statistics, we could expect just over two teens to contract myocarditis from COVID-19 infection. Meanwhile, we have 1,475 cases reported following the COVID jab in just six months (shots for 12- to 17-year-olds were authorized July 30, 202129).

Taking into account underreporting, the real number could be anywhere between 7,375 and 59,000 — again, in just six months! To estimate an annual rate, we’d have to double it, giving us anywhere from 14,750 to 118,000 cases of myocarditis. So, is it actually true that “For adolescents and young adults, the risk of myocarditis caused by COVID infection is much higher than after mRNA vaccination”? I doubt it.

Can You Lessen the Damaging Effects?

There is absolutely no medical rationale or justification for children and teens to get a COVID shot. It’s all risk and no gain. If for whatever reason your son or daughter has already received one or more jabs, and you hope to lessen their risk of cardiac and cardiovascular complications, there are a few basic strategies I would suggest implementing.

Keep in mind these suggestions DO NOT supersede or cancel out any medical advice they may receive from their pediatrician. These are really only recommendations for when there are no adverse symptoms. If your child experiences any symptoms of a cardiac or cardiovascular problem, seek immediate medical attention.

1. First and foremost, do not give them another shot or booster.

2. Measure their vitamin D level and make sure they take enough vitamin D orally and/or get sensible sun exposure to make sure their level is between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/ml (150 to 200 nmol/l).

3. Eliminate all vegetable (seed) oils in their diet. This involves eliminating nearly all processed foods and most meals in restaurants unless you convince the chef to only cook with butter. Avoid any sauces or salad dressings as they are loaded with seed oils.

Also avoid conventionally raised chicken and pork as they are very high in linoleic acid, the omega-6 fat that is far too high in nearly everyone and contributes to oxidative stress that causes heart disease.

4. Consider giving them around 500 milligrams per day of NAC, as it helps prevent blood clots and is a precursor for the important antioxidant glutathione.

5. Consider fibrinolytic enzymes that digest the fibrin that leads to blood clots, strokes and pulmonary embolisms. The dose is typically two to six capsules, twice a day, but must be taken on an empty stomach, either an hour before or two hours after a meal. Otherwise, the enzymes will merely act as a digestive enzyme rather than digesting fibrin.

Sources and References

January 8, 2022 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment