Aletho News


Irish Government To Publish Online Harms Bill

By Richie Allen | January 12, 2022

The Irish government is set to follow its British counterpart and publish an online harms bill. The legislation will allow for the appointment of an online safety commissioner to head up a new Media Commission.

According to state broadcaster RTÉ:

The commissioner will draw up rules around how social media services should deal with harmful online content.

Harmful online content includes criminal material, serious cyber-bullying material and material promoting self-harm, suicide and eating disorders.

The commissioner will have the power to appoint authorised officers to conduct investigations.

In the event of a failure to comply with an online safety code, and subject to court approval, the Media Commission will have the power to impose financial sanctions of up to €20m or 10% of turnover.

The Cabinet is expected to agree to beginning the process to recruit the Online Safety Commissioner.

Under the legislation before Government this morning, the Media Commission would take on the current functions of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland and regulate both television and radio broadcasters.

The Irish bill has nothing to do with cyber-bullying or eating disorders. This is state sanctioned censorship. The legacy media (TV, radio, newspapers) is off-limits to the scientists, doctors, academics and researchers who appear on shows like The Richie Allen Show.

Governments and their media lackeys are nothing more than gatekeepers for the architects of Orwellian globalist agendas. They work round the clock to banish whistleblowing scientists and doctors from the mainstream media.

Up until now however, they’ve failed to prevent them from sharing information online. This is where online harms bills come in. Here in the UK, the online harms bill proposes a two year jail sentence for someone who knowingly spreads medical misinformation on the internet.

That’s right. You could be arrested and charged for discussing the dangers of taking unnecessary vaccines or other medicines, because someone might read your blog or listen to your podcast and decline the medicine. Being right won’t be a defence.

When online harms bills get through national parliaments, freedom of expression is dead. That’s what this is really all about.

January 12, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | 1 Comment

Parents Must Be Allowed to Decide on COVID Vaccines for Kids, Physician Tells Maine Lawmakers

The Defender | January 12, 2022

Parents must be allowed to make individualized decisions regarding the risks and benefits of COVID vaccines for their children, Dr. Meryl Nass told Maine lawmakers this week.

Nass, a Maine-based practicing physician and member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee, submitted written testimony to the Maine Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee in support of a bill that would ban state-mandated COVID-19 vaccinations without informed consent.

Hundreds of Maine residents on Tuesday attended a public hearing in support of the bill. Click here to listen to the entire hearing.

There are many reasons why preventing COVID vaccine mandates until adequate, sufficient safety studies have been performed is “the right decision for this committee and legislature,” Nass wrote.

Those reasons include:

  • All available COVID vaccines are experimental products.
  • Legally, recipients must be offered the right to refuse.
  • Mandates negate the right of refusal.
  • Basic safety questions regarding the vaccines have not been resolved, and some will not be answered until 2027.
  • The WHO does not recommend broad COVID vaccinations for children.
  • Parents should be permitted to make individualized decisions regarding their children’s risks and benefits from COVID vaccines.
  • Unfortunately, no one can make a fully informed decision about COVID vaccines until the public has access to complete information on safety and efficacy, which are not now available. This fact alone should negate all mandates.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Tracy Quint, a Republican from Hodgdon, Maine, told the committee the bill would protect “the vital right of all Mainers to informed consent” about a vaccine whose long-term effects are unknown. She called it a chance “to change course” on the controversial issue.

Quint told Newscenter Maine she’s been hearing from people, particularly concerned parents, from across the state who are fearful there will soon be a vaccine mandate in schools.

“It didn’t matter whether they were a Democrat or a Republican, just parents in general, had some concerns whether or not this would be mandated for their children,” Quint said.

Matt Landry of Greene, Maine — one of more than 280 people who testified remotely or wrote in during the three-hour hearing — told lawmakers he is “tired of these jabs being forced against the people’s will and making people sick, injured or dead. I can see it happening to people I know, and it makes my blood boil.”

Maine Gov. Janet Mills, who opposes the bill, told Newscenter Maine:

“This is the time for everybody in leadership positions, everybody in public office, everybody in roles of leadership in their community, to get the word out to make sure people understand how safe and thoroughly tested these vaccines are and how critical they are to keep you out of the hospital, keep you out of the ICU, keep you from dying.”

But Nass told lawmakers no matter what claims have been made regarding these vaccines, they are not “safe and effective.”

Nass wrote:

“‘Safe and effective’ is an [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] ‘term of art’ that may only be applied to licensed drugs and vaccines. All currently available COVID vaccines in the United States are unlicensed and experimental, a.k.a. investigational.”

Read Nass’ full testimony below:

January 11, 2022

Honorable Chairpersons, Members and Senators,

I write in support of LD 867. There are many reasons why preventing COVID vaccine mandates until adequate, sufficient safety studies have been performed is the right decision for this committee and legislature.

1. COVID vaccines are experimental

Let me say, first, that no matter what claims have been made regarding these vaccines, they are not “safe and effective.” “Safe and effective” is an FDA “term of art” that may only be applied to licensed drugs and vaccines. All currently available COVID vaccines in the United States are unlicensed and experimental, a.k.a. investigational.

Medicines and vaccines are either licensed products or experimental products. There is no gray area between them in US law. Whether or not research is explicitly conducted, the use of experimental products (including those issued an Emergency Use Authorization) falls under the Nuremberg Code and under US law regulating experimental drugs. As former FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn himself noted, “EUA products are still considered investigational.”

According to 21CFR Subchapter D Part 312: “an experiment is any use of a drug except for the use of a marketed drug in the course of medical practice.” Vaccines are considered a subset of drugs by FDA. And the use of unlicensed, Emergency Use Authorized vaccines is thus, by definition, experimental.

US law requires that humans receiving experimental products must provide written informed consent. However, when the PREP Act creating Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) was written, this requirement was loosened slightly for emergencies in which EUA products would be used. The required disclosures when using EUAs were specified below. Please note the option to accept or refuse.

21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 – Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies (ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed —

(I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product;

(II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and

(III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.

All Moderna, Janssen (Johnson and Johnson) and all childhood Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines are being used under EUAs. And while the adult Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is supposed to be licensed with brand name Comirnaty, in fact the Pfizer adult vaccines being used in the US today are EUA products as well.

2. While FDA licensed Comirnaty, the only approved COVID vaccine, only Emergency Use Authorized (experimental) vaccines are being used in the US

Despite claims to the contrary, the licensed and branded Comirnaty has not been made available for administration in the US. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which is currently available, is authorized under an Emergency Use Authorization, which provides a broad liability shield to the manufacturer, distributor, administrator, program planner, and virtually anyone else involved in the vaccination process. The branded product, on the other hand, is subject to ordinary liability claims at the present time.

Exactly three weeks after FDA issued Comirnaty a license, the National Library of Medicine, part of the NIH, posted information that Pfizer was not planning to make Comirnaty available in the US while the EUA vaccine was still available.

Pfizer received FDA BLA license for its COVID-19 vaccine

Pfizer received FDA BLA license on 8/23/2021 for its COVID-19 vaccine for use in individuals 16 and older (COMIRNATY). At that time, the FDA published a BLA package insert that included the approved new COVID-19 vaccine tradename COMIRNATY and listed 2 new NDCs (0069-1000-03, 0069-1000-02) and images of labels with the new tradename.

At present, Pfizer does not plan to produce any product with these new NDCs and labels over the next few months while EUA authorized product is still available and being made available for U.S. distribution. As such, the CDC, AMA, and drug compendia may not publish these new codes until Pfizer has determined when the product will be produced with the BLA labels.

FDA extended the vaccine’s EUA authorization on the same day it licensed the vaccine.

FDA appears to have been acceding to the White House demand that the vaccine be licensed, to allow it to be mandated for large sectors of the US population. Under an EUA, which specifies that potential recipients have the right to refuse, mandates cannot be imposed. So a license was issued, allowing the administration to inform the public that the vaccine was fully approved and licensed. But in fact, the public was unable to access the licensed vaccine.

Why was this convoluted regulatory process performed? While under EUA, Pfizer has an almost bulletproof liability shield. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on September 23, 2021, “courts have characterized PREP Act immunity as ‘sweeping.’” The CRS explains, “the PREP Act immunizes a covered person from legal liability for all claims for loss related to the administration or use of a covered countermeasure.”

3. FDA instructed Pfizer-BioNTech that FDA’s Congressionally-mandated databases are inadequate to assess the danger of myocarditis (and other potential COVID vaccine side effects) and therefore Pfizer-BioNTech must perform studies to evaluate these risks over the next six years

On the day FDA issued a license for Comirnaty, August 23, 2021, FDA instructed Pfizer-BioNTech that it did NOT have sufficient information on serious potential risks of the product, and required Pfizer and BioNTech, the manufacturers, to conduct a series of studies to assess these potential risks. These studies were to be performed on both products: the licensed Comirnaty and the EUA Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Note that they include the requirement for a safety study in pregnancy, which will not be completed until December 31, 2025.

I have reproduced part of what FDA wrote about these required safety studies below, directly from pages 6-11 of the FDA approval letter sent to BioNTech.

FDA’s admission that it cannot assess these safety risks, and that up to 6 years will be taken to study them, provides us with additional de facto evidence that the Pfizer vaccines cannot be termed safe, as many of the fundamental safety studies are only now getting started.

“POSTMARKETING REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 505(o) Section 505(o) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) authorizes FDA to require holders of approved drug and biological product applications to conduct postmarketing studies and clinical trials for certain purposes, if FDA makes certain findings required by the statute (section 505(o)(3)(A), 21 U.S.C. 355(o)(3)(A)).

We have determined that an analysis of spontaneous postmarketing adverse events reported under section 505(k)(1) of the FDCA will not be sufficient to assess known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis and identify an unexpected serious risk of subclinical myocarditis.

Furthermore, the pharmacovigilance system that FDA is required to maintain under section 505(k)(3) of the FDCA is not sufficient to assess these serious risks. Therefore, based on appropriate scientific data, we have determined that you are required to conduct the following studies:

  1. Study C4591009, entitled “A Non-Interventional Post-Approval Safety Study of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine in the United States,” to evaluate the occurrence of myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of COMIRNATY. We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule: Final Protocol Submission: August 31, 2021 Monitoring Report Submission: October 31, 2022 Interim Report Submission: October 31, 2023 Study Completion: June 30, 2025 Final Report Submission: October 31, 2025
  2. Study C4591021, entitled “Post Conditional Approval [EUA] Active Surveillance Study Among Individuals in Europe Receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech Coronavirus Page 7 – STN BL 125742/0 – Elisa Harkins Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine,” to evaluate the occurrence of myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of COMIRNATY. We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule: Final Protocol Submission: August 11, 2021 Progress Report Submission: September 30, 2021 Interim Report 1 Submission: March 31, 2022 Interim Report 2 Submission: September 30, 2022 Interim Report 3 Submission: March 31, 2023 Interim Report 4 Submission: September 30, 2023 Interim Report 5 Submission: March 31, 2024 Study Completion: March 31, 2024 Final Report Submission: September 30, 2024
  3. Study C4591021 sub-study to describe the natural history of myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of COMIRNATY. We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule: Final Protocol Submission: January 31, 2022 Study Completion: March 31, 2024 Final Report Submission: September 30, 2024 7. Study C4591036, a prospective cohort study with at least 5 years of follow-up for potential long-term sequelae of myocarditis after vaccination (in collaboration with Pediatric Heart Network). We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule: Final Protocol Submission: November 30, 2021 Study Completion: December 31, 2026 Page 8 – STN BL 125742/0 – Elisa Harkins Final Report Submission: May 31, 2027
  4. Study C4591007 sub-study to prospectively assess the incidence of subclinical myocarditis following administration of the second dose of COMIRNATY in a subset of participants 5 through 15 years of age. We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states that you will conduct this assessment according to the following schedule: Final Protocol Submission: September 30, 2021 Study Completion: November 30, 2023 Final Report Submission: May 31, 2024
  5. Study C4591031 sub-study to prospectively assess the incidence of subclinical myocarditis following administration of a third dose of COMIRNATY in a subset of participants 16 to 30 years of age. We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule: Final Protocol Submission: November 30, 2021 Study Completion: June 30, 2022.

Final Report Submission: December 31, 2022 …

  1. Study C4591022, entitled “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine [the EUA vaccine] Exposure during Pregnancy: A Non-Interventional Post-Approval Safety Study of Pregnancy and Infant Outcomes in the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists (OTIS)/MotherToBaby Pregnancy Registry.”

Final Protocol Submission: July 1, 2021 Study Completion: June 30, 2025

Final Report Submission: December 31, 2025

4. The World Health Organization does not recommend COVID vaccines for normal children

The WHO website “WHO SHOULD GET VACCINATED” states the following:

Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults, so unless they are part of a group at higher risk of severe COVID-19, it is less urgent to vaccinate them than older people, those with chronic health conditions and health workers.

More evidence is needed on the use of the different COVID-19 vaccines in children to be able to make general recommendations on vaccinating children against COVID-19.

WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) has concluded that the Pfizer/BionTech vaccine is suitable for use by people aged 12 years and above. Children aged between 12 and 15 who are at high risk may be offered this vaccine alongside other priority groups for vaccination. Vaccine trials for children are ongoing and WHO will update its recommendations when the evidence or epidemiological situation warrants a change in policy.

If the World Health Organization believes there is insufficient evidence to support general vaccination of normal children, why would this committee and the Maine Legislature think otherwise?

To sum up:

  • All available COVID vaccines are experimental products.
  • Legally, recipients must be offered the right to refuse.
  • Mandates negate the right of refusal.
  • Basic safety questions regarding the vaccines have not been resolved, and some will not be answered until 2027.
  • The WHO does not recommend broad COVID vaccinations for children.
  • Parents should be permitted to make individualized decisions regarding their children’s risks and benefits from COVID vaccines.
  • Unfortunately, no one can make a fully informed decision about COVID vaccines until the public has access to complete information on safety and efficacy, which are not now available. This fact alone should negate all mandates.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Meryl Nass, MD

© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

January 12, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

It is time to end the pandemic state of emergency

Declare the Pandemic Over! 

By Paul Elias Alexander, PhD | January 12, 2022

I begin with the end. It is time we allow policy to be made by the States as POTUS Biden has indicated. Omicron has presented the unique opportunity for the federal and local governments to declare success, that the vaccines have helped somewhat, the risk is very low for Omicron, and that COVID January 2022 is not COVID February 2020.

The vaccines have shown themselves to be ineffective now and there are reports of adverse effects and even deaths post vaccine. This is a real concern and forms part of my view that we must end this now. All of it. To the extent that vaccines were ever needed, my view remains ‘no’.

Yes, I can repeat what I have stated repeatedly and for well over a year now (AIER) and more recently (Brownstone), that the lockdowns are and were futile, and so were the school closures and mask mandates. That mass testing and isolation/quarantine of asymptomatic persons was useless and actually harmful. That you could never ever defeat a mutable respiratory virus and especially one with an animal reservoir and open borders. That the lockdown policies caused crushing harms on societies and especially those least able to afford them. That business owners and laid off employees and children self-harmed and took their own lives. That you would deny people the right to choose vaccination or not (their natural immunity), with relentless infringement on their liberties and humanity. That you would work to wrongfully and without scientific basis, separate the society on vaccine status. That you would claim success when the epidemic waves declined without any regard for seasonality and the natural behavior of the epidemic and as such, insist you do more and more of the same failed policies.

Yes, I could go on and on about the catastrophic failures of the lockdowns and near every pandemic policy and action taken, but this is not the place. We have to focus on moving forward for the society is dangerously fractured, polarized, and divided. Yes, we have plenty of time to revisit and examine what went wrong and I do not wish to be sidetracked and want to focus on ‘ending the pandemic emergency’ and ‘moving forward’ immediately given the trauma to the society.

The fact is that we know extensively more on who is at risk and how to manage and treat COVID. Omicron can allow the government to now save face and declare success. We can thus begin healing our societies. It is time we learn to manage this virus and go on with life, and start by ending the emergency, the restrictions, and mandates. Now. The nation is suffering and especially our children, and in many respects, needlessly.

It is time now. It is time we be brave as a society. It is time to end the pandemic state of emergency. It is time also to end the controls, the closures, the restrictions, the plexiglass, the social distancing stickers and exhortations, the distancing announcements, and also the vaccine mandates given the overwhelming evidence implying that the infection explosion globally that we have been experiencing – post-double vaccination and even triple vaccination in e.g. Israel, UK, US etc. – may be due to the vaccinated becoming infected and spreading Covid as much or more than the unvaccinated.

We have emerging indications (not yet affirmed) that 95% of infections in Germany are among the fully vaccinated. Additional evidence of the seeming failure of the vaccines emerged when Omicron cases spiked in Germany’s most vaccinated state. Israel is already considering a fourth vaccination for the elderly (given that the prior three shots have been largely ineffective with vaccinal immunity rapidly waning) and also whether to end vaccination in everyone except high-risk people, and thus adopting a ‘herd’ immunity policy.

The former COVID czar of Israel has now alluded that Omicron “will give Israel herd immunity without swamping ICUs.” In Israel, it is becoming increasingly clear that Omicron could lead to population-level herd immunityDenmark is also signaling admission of Omicron’s deliverance from the COVID-19 pandemic, stating “it will impart a kind of herd immunity shielding the country from future variants.” Vaccines and mandates are increasingly being called into question in the face of Omicron with health experts saying “the highly transmissible Omicron variant could help countries reach herd immunity as cases continue to rise.”

COVID is circling the drain and this pandemic emergency can end. This will take courage and political will. Ending this is really a societal decision where the population must decide it is time to go on with usual life, making reasonable commonsense decisions and taking necessary precautions. This means we will have to come to terms with living with the pathogen and that this is reasonable and was expected. This signals a healthy society. We already have the Great Barrington Declaration and a 20-step Alexander/Brownstone Model as signposts to help us emerge.

The evidence shows that there is no marked difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated in terms of infection risk and harboring of heavy viral load, relative to previous variants. We have accumulated evidence that appear to strongly support this (Brownstone here, hereherehereherehereherehere,hereherehereherehereherehereherehereherehereherehereherehereherehereherehereherehereherehereherehereherehere, and here.

What these studies have shown are that vaccines have not protected against the Delta and Omicron variants. Importantly, they show that the vaccines cannot stop the disease from spreading and eventually infect most of us. That is, while the vaccines provide individual benefits to the vaccinee, and especially to older high-risk people, the public benefit of universal vaccination is in grave doubt.

As such, Covid vaccines should not be expected to contribute to eliminating the communal spread of the virus or the reaching of herd immunity. These vaccines cannot cut the chain of transmission and thus have no role in contributing to herd immunity. We also have accumulated evidence that the vaccines are harmful for many, and alarmingly in young persons e.g. myocarditis in males < 40 years of age (Patone et al.). What we are seeing is that the vaccines are very limited in stopping Omicron infection that now dominates. It is becoming increasingly clear that we will have to rely on natural immunity (COVID-recovered) to get us to population-level herd immunity.

This unravels the rationale for vaccine mandates and passports. “The notion that we have to vaccinate every living, walking American – and eventually every newborn – in order to control the pandemic,” writes Marty Makary, “is based on the false assumption that the risk of dying from COVID-19 is equally distributed in the population. It’s not. We have always known that it’s very hard for the virus to hurt someone who is young and healthy. And that’s still the case.”

As it currently stands, the SCOTUS seems poised to rule against POTUS Biden’s vaccine and testing mandates for businesses. We even have evidence that Omicron arrived on all 7 continents, as 36 cases were reported in Antarctica.

We also know that natural immunity is superior to vaccine immunity and it always was. Any suggestions otherwise by public health leaders and officials have been an effort to misinform and mislead the public into vaccinating. It is actually a scandal, outrageously so, that the natural immunity (COVID-recovered) of persons is not being recognized as equal to and even superior to vaccine immunity as it is.

It turns out that we have data to show that natural immunity is life-long, with data showing that it is robust near 100 years after exposure e.g. researchers find long-lived immunity to 1918 pandemic virus, CIDRAP, 2008 and the actual 2008 NATURE journal publication by Yu. We also know of the research that exposure to prior common cold coronavirus provides protection and that we were likely all immune at some level e.g. exposure to common cold coronaviruses can teach the immune system to recognize SARS-CoV-2, La Jolla, Crotty and Sette, 2020 and selective and cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes in unexposed humans, Mateus, 2020, as well as those who had SARS-1 in 2003 were immune to SARS-CoV-2 now e.g. SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls, Le Bert, 2020.

It is becoming more apparent then, that the pandemic is on its last legs and Omicron has ushered this endemic (endemic equilibrium) phase in, thankfully. This variant is milder yet highly infectious. Yes, we have had approximately 1 million new cases in one day in the United States as January 2022 arrived and we have to take this seriously and be on guard as the pandemic winds down.

Importantly, while there has been an increase, the massive hospitalization has not occurred and the ICU and death curves that typically follow the infection and case curves by approximately one to two weeks, have not materialized. The deaths are about one-tenth of Delta’s. The New York Times has reported that Omicron is not more severe for children, this despite increasing hospitalizations. Dr. Fauci has also weighed in by stating “hospitals are overcounting COVID-19 cases in children because they automatically get tested.”

This is tremendous news for populations. We have been fortunate that the variants have been mild as expected (Muller’s ratchet), yet there is always a small risk that a novel variant can be pathogenic. We continue to be hopeful that the mildness and non-lethality of Omicron remains so and we have no data or evidence to suggest otherwise.

The very good news is based on the best data to date. The vaccines have served their purpose but have shown themselves to be insufficient against the Omicron variant, which by the very infectious nature of this variant, will affect virtually everyone regardless of vaccinations. Moreover, after its current steep rise, there will be a peak and decline and reduction of what is left of Covid to small endemic pockets that may recur in the fall like flu but will continue according to best evidence as mild if annoying infections.

The evidence accumulated rapidly that Omicron quickly escalated, peaked, and then declined as rapidly (herehereherehere). “If you look at the United States, the bulk of the infections should be mid-January, and we should start seeing a decline in the second half of January,” Vespignani says. “So it’s, in a sense, very soon.”

Recent research findings out of Hong Kong give us even more good news. Researchers reported that “Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infects and multiplies 70 times faster than the Delta variant and original SARS-CoV-2 in human bronchus.” This helps account for why this variant may spread faster between humans than prior variants e.g. Delta. Their study also showed that “the Omicron infection in the lung is significantly lower than the original SARS-CoV-2, which may be an indicator of lower disease severity.”

Researchers found that “the variant replicates much faster in the bronchus, which connects the windpipe to the lungs, 24 hours after infection. Yet it reproduces more than 10 times slower in the actual human lung tissue.”

In sum, this is all great news.

Yes, there is evidence of reinfection (though the data is still to be robustly collected and expert immunologists explain this represents more of an ‘immune rechallenge’ and not pure breach of natural acquired/adaptive immunity) but by all accounts, the symptoms are mild, with reports that even the elderly require no treatment and that symptoms are short-lived. This is excellent news and we see no indications that this will change. At the same time, we should expect some modest amount of death in vulnerable persons. In effect, COVID can be considered being over and Omicron has hastened the pace of endemic transition. Omicron is being exalted as nature’s vaccine, a gift, an off-ramp, an exit strategy for governments and COVID policy decision-makers, should they have the courage and will to avail themselves of it.

In summary, it is now time to end the pandemic’s state of emergency and everything associated with it. All mandates. It is time we accept that we will live with COVID as we live with other mild common cold coronaviruses. Normal infection is the risk we accept in a free society that comes with day-to-day living. It comes with freedom to make commonsense decisions, based on one’s personal risk profile, one’s own needs, values, and preferences.

There is never ‘zero risk’ and vulnerable persons may succumb but if there is one thing COVID has taught us or reminded us, it is that we must properly and strongly protect the vulnerable (elderly) and high-risk persons among us ‘first.’ But ‘zero COVID’ or ‘stop COVID at all costs’ only destroys economies, and the collateral damage as to harms and suicides are crushing. This is particularly so for women and children and especially those poorer among us who can least afford. We must never take this path again or allow our governments the emergency powers to implement these liberty- and human rights-crushing lockdown policies. Lockdown costs (financial and otherwise) have been catastrophic and will incur millions of years of life lost to Americans.

It is time we allow policy to be made by the States as POTUS Biden has indicated. Omicron has presented the opportunity for the federal and local governments to declare success, that the vaccines have helped, the risk is very low for Omicron, and that COVID January 2022 is not COVID February 2020.

We know extensively more on who is at risk and how to manage and treat COVID. Omicron can allow the government to now save face and declare success. We can thus begin healing our societies. It is time we learn to manage this virus and go on with life, and start by ending the emergency, the restrictions, and mandates.

January 12, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 2 Comments

Washington DC to combine photo ID with vaccine passport scheme

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | January 12, 2022

The mayor of Washington DC has decided to introduce new Covid restriction to the US capital starting on January 15, when businesses and many venues will start asking for proof of vaccination and, on top, a picture ID as yet more proof – that their vaccine pass really belongs to them.

The new rules concerning ID verification will apply to everyone over 18 who wishes to enter a restaurant, bar, gym, movie theater, etc., and the mandate is being introduced by Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat. Bowser announced the more stringent measures back in December.

Children aged 12 to 18 will also have to show vaccination cards if they wish to enter restaurants, concert venues, bowling alleys, and other venues. In addition, these businesses will have to put a sign in their window that notifies customers and reads, “Attention: Per Mayor’s Order 2021-48, COVID-19 Vaccination is REQUIRED to enter this business” – the Washington DC government’s site explains.

However, the inclusion of photo IDs in the vaccine mandate scheme in the District as an order coming from a Democratic mayor looks puzzling to those who recall that the party’s leaders, including President Biden, previously equated requiring photo IDs to vote to “21st century Jim Crow” – referring to historical state and local racial segregation laws in the US.

When Biden went after Georgia last summer for its new voter law that required citizens to prove their identity with an ID, he effectively accused the state and Republicans of introducing discrimination against minorities, who are most likely to lack picture IDs, saying the new legislation was “un-American” and designed to deny people their rights – in that case, the right to vote.

Biden went on to accuse his political opponents of enacting a law that was “a blatant attack on the Constitution and good conscience.”

But no such consideration seems to now be extended to Washington DC residents who will have to show their ID cards, driver’s licenses, passports, or another state-issued document to avoid getting cut off from many everyday activities.

January 12, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | , , | 3 Comments

US quietly ditches project to pipe ‘Israeli’ gas to Europe: Report

Press TV – January 12, 2022

The United States has abandoned a subsea pipeline designed to supply Europe with natural gas from the eastern Mediterranean, as tensions continue to grow between Greece and Turkey over gas reserves in the region.

The Middle East Eye (MEE) news portal reported on Wednesday that Washington had submitted a non-paper to Athens earlier this week, expressing its concerns over the EastMed project. The note described the project as a “primary source of tensions” and something “destabilizing” the region by putting Turkey and regional countries at loggerheads, according to the Greek media.

The non-paper also cited environmental concerns, lack of economic and commercial viability, and creating tensions in the region as reasons to explain why the US no longer supported the project, Greek public broadcaster ERT said.

Greece, Cyprus, and Israel signed an agreement in 2020 for the construction of the Eastern Mediterranean pipeline, a 1,900-kilometer (1,180-mile) undersea pipeline designed to deliver Israeli natural gas to Europe by 2025 to help Europe diversify its energy resources. The project was expected to initially carry 10 billion cubic meters of gas a year to Europe.

In a statement on Sunday, the US State Department said that it no longer supported the construction of the EastMed gas pipeline project, saying Washington was shifting its focus to electricity interconnectors that can support both gas and renewable energy sources.

“We remain committed to physically interconnecting East Med energy to Europe,” the statement said, adding, “We support projects such as the planned EuroAfrica interconnector from Egypt to Crete and the Greek mainland, and the proposed EuroAsia interconnector to link the Israeli, Cypriot and European electricity grids.”

Turkish officials on Tuesday welcomed the US statement on the project.

An unnamed Turkish official told the MEE that Turkey wasn’t particularly surprised by the decision. “US officials never thought this project was feasible,” the official said. “We knew that they didn’t support it.”

A second Turkish official also said Ankara always told its neighbors that it wasn’t technically possible to carry Israeli gas through Cyprus, and the only alternative was through Turkey. “Otherwise the Israeli gas could be used for local consumption,” the second official added.

Turkey opposes the pipeline project, which passes through disputed maritime territories claimed by both Turkey and Greece. It has repeatedly said that any plans in the eastern Mediterranean that exclude Ankara are bound to fail.

January 12, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Boosters are over

By Alex Berenson | Unreported Truths | January 12, 2022

Now the World Health Organization has waved the white flag on Covid vaccine boosters too.

WHO released a statement about Covid vaccines yesterday. It’s filled with the usual public health jargon and ass-covering, but one line stands out:

… a vaccination strategy based on repeated booster doses of the original vaccine composition is unlikely to be appropriate or sustainable.

It’s over, people.

Aside from a few unlucky Israelis, no one is going to receive a fourth dose of the original vaccine; everyone with eyes can see it doesn’t work against Omicron. (And if you haven’t gotten a third dose, at this point, why would you? You are getting at most weeks of marginally improved protection for potentially severe side effects.)

Instead the WHO is now promising/demanding vaccines based on whatever the dominant Sars-Cov-2 strain is at the moment.

That promise is as empty as all the others the health bureaucrats and vaccine companies have made.

At least five major variants (“variants of concern”) have developed in the last year, and two have become globally dominant. Even the mRNA vaccines cannot be cooked up and delivered fast enough to match whatever strain of virus becomes dominant. Covid is faster than the scientists.

At most, future Covid vaccinations will look a lot like current influenza vaccinations (and NOT the other way around). They’ll be cooked up annually and handed out at the beginning of the winter season. They won’t do much, and no one will expect them to.

Except when it comes to Covid, the WHO doesn’t want those vaccines either.

It explicitly said in the statement that future vaccines against Covid must “be more effective in protection against infection thus lowering community transmission.”

Two huge points hidden in those 11 words:

First, they are inherently a devastating critique of the current failure of Covid vaccines to work as promised.

Second, the WHO does NOT apply that standard to flu vaccines, which do not and are not expected to stop community transmission. Why demand more of Covid vaccines? The only honest answer is that the mRNA and DNA Covid vaccines have much more severe side effects than flu vaccines and thus must be held to a much higher standard.

Which they have no hope of meeting.

The war is over. The (mRNA) vaccines lost. The only question is when how many more people will be harmed before American public health authorities announce their surrender.


January 12, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Tidal Wave of Documents on Gain-of-Function and the Leak of the Virus

Stuff is starting to get interesting (and undeniable)

By Robert W Malone MD, MS | January 11, 2022

There is so much news hitting the streets that is being censored by main stream media and social media today, that it is overwhelming easy comprehension.

Let’s start with the letter to sent to Secretary of the HHS, Xavier Becerra from Representatives Jim Jordan (Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary) and James Comer (Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight and Reform). Here is the opening excerpt:

The letter goes on:

Rather than be transparent with the Committee, HHS and NIH continue to hide, obfuscate, and shield the truth. By continuing to refuse to cooperate with our request, your agencies are choosing to hide information that will help inform the origins of the ongoing pandemic, prevent future pandemics, respond to future pandemics, inform the United States’ current national security posture, and restore confidence in our public health experts. HHS and NIH’s continued obstruction is likely to cause irreparable harm to the credibility of these agencies. The emails released today raise significant questions, including but not limited to:

1. Did Drs. Fauci or Collins warn anyone at the White House about the potential COVID-19 originated in a lab and could be intentionally genetically manipulated?

2. If these concerns were not shared, why was the decision to keep them quiet made?

3. What new evidence, if any, came to light about COVID-19 between February 1, 2020 and February 4, 2020 to alter the belief it originated in a lab?

4. Did Drs. Fauci or Collins edit the Nature Medicine paper entitled “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2”?

5. Would having this knowledge earlier have benefitted either vaccine or treatment development?

6. By February 1, 2020, were Drs. Fauci or Collins aware of the State Department’s warnings about WIV safety?

7. Would this warning have changed the early response to the COVID-19 pandemic?

These questions are vital to understanding this and future pandemic responses. Unfortunately, thus far, HHS and its subordinate agency have hidden behind redactions to shield these emails from public scrutiny. We call on you to immediately lift these redactions and produce the email communications to Congress. Further, considering the import of the above questions, we request Dr. Anthony Fauci be made immediately available to sit for a transcribed interview. Please respond by January 18, 2022 to confirm.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

The appendixes of this letter have a number of emails showing in detail what is alleged above. Again, please open the document and read for yourself. These emails are in of themselves the smoking gun that reveal the lies Dr. Fauci has told Congress about what he knew of the gain-of-function research.

If you want a detailed analysis of above letter and the appended emails, I recommend ZeroHedge Tyler Durden’s article entitled “House Republicans Release Damning Fauci Emails Suggesting Concealed Knowledge Of Lab Leak”.

More on the Project Veritas data dump.

Minor main stream media outlets are already trying to cast aspersions on the Veritas documents, although as of yet, they have yet to strike a direct hit. Their tactic out of the box are to attack Veritas, and smear the legitimacy of the documents (without evidence, near as I can tell). All the while, ignoring the contents of the documents themselves. Did “we” really expect anything more from them?

I will be the first to say that we don’t have full verification, but the report issued to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense by US Marine Corp Major Joseph Murphy on August 13th, 2021 appears to be the real deal so far. When Project Veritas contacted Major Murphy, he declined to talk about the documents, but Project Veritas reported that he said the following:

To me, the above statement doesn’t exactly sound like a denial. Something tells me that Major Murphy will be pushed one way or another to reveal more of what he knows. To either verify the legitimacy of his report or not.

First, I encourage everyone to read the actual report.

This report is damming on so many fronts. Read it. Read it. Read it.

If validated, it is as big as the Pentagon papers. This would mean that research funded and conducted by the US Government has caused the death of millions of people world wide. Just ponder that. I can’t hardly wrap my head around the idea. Shocking doesn’t describe how important this is. History will remember.

I am briefly going to focus on just one of tiny aspect of this report. The “how and why” this all happened:

Translated: The purpose of the gain of function research was to inoculate (vaccinate) bats found in caves in Yunnan, China where confirmed SARS viruses had been identified. This research project was to reduce the prevalence of bat SARS viruses found in bat populations there. Basically, the researchers were trying to build a bat attenuated virus spike protein vaccine to “enhance their immune memory.” Of course, remember the adage that one should not vaccinate into a pandemic or against a rapidly mutating RNA virus, as one does not want create vaccine escape mutants. But these researchers seemed unaware of this risk (they seemed unaware on a whole lot of issues, but that is beside the point here). Why vaccinate bats with viruses adapted to humans, you might ask? Major Murphy then details that the virus got accidentally released before it fully attenuated (attenuated means to be mutated to be non-pathogenic, presumably to bats and humans).

Now, I have all sorts of questions about this. My first and foremost question is why would the researchers chose a chimera that attaches to human ACE2 receptors as the target?

Warning- tortuous logic curves ahead…

Once again seeking to provide benefit of the doubt, I suspect that the logic must have been that by vaccinating the bats with such a construct, this would reduce the risk of developing a human adapted, ACE2-binding SARS-related virus in same bats. But if this is the case, then the logic is really convoluted. One would first develop a human adapted SARS-like virus which binds human ACE2, then attenuate this virus, then find a way to aerosolize it, then infect the bats. And apparently, somehow, before the attenuation step to adapt the human adapted virus to infect the bats, there was a lab leak.

I think that might have been the underlying logic and history, at least as far as I can figure out at this point.

I think that at this point we can all agree that more rigorous constraints on gain of function research are needed. And in my opinion, we need to renegotiate the biowarfare treaty.

However, how we can stop arrogant scientists with a sense of entitlement from doing reckless stuff with viruses is beyond me.

I also still question the legitimacy of this report. Provenance and chain of custody need to be established. A statement from Major Murphy to someone or a group other than the primary source of the documents would be a good start.

Please note that I have only touched on one tiny aspect of this report. Please go read it for yourself. It is jaw dropping in its detail and allegations.

I also know that it is time for Congress to step in and investigate. Are all of these documents real? Does Major Murphy’s report accurately detail all of the events in the report? Finally, I have complete faith that the Congressional Representatives Jim Jorden and James Comer intend to conduct this investigation. I just hope that the rest of Congress gets out of the way and lets them do their job.

January 12, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Where Are the Realists?

US foreign policy endangers Americans without delivering any benefits


Sometimes it seems that when it comes to international relations Russian president Vladimir Putin might be the only head of state who is capable of any rational proposals. His recent negotiating positions conveyed initially by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Rybakov to step back from the brink of war between his country and the United States over Ukraine are largely eminently sensible and would defuse the possibility that Eastern Europe might become a future Sarajevo incident that would ignite a nuclear war. Per Putin, “We need long-term legally binding guarantees even if we know they cannot be trusted, as the US frequently withdraws from treaties that become uninteresting to them. But…something [more is needed], not just verbal assurances.”

Putin and President Biden discussed the Russian proposals and other issues in a phone conversation on December 30th, in which Biden called for diplomacy, and both he and Putin reportedly took steps to defuse the possible confrontation. In the phone call the two presidents agreed to initiate bilateral negotiations described as “strategic stability dialogue” relating to “mutual security guarantees” which have now begun on Sunday, January 9th, in Geneva. That will be followed by an exploratory meeting of the NATO-Russia Council on Wednesday and another meeting with the Organization for Security and Cooperation on Thursday.

Pat Buchanan, who is somewhat skeptical about Russian overreach, has summed up the Putin position, which he refers to as an ultimatum, as “Get off our front porch. Get out of our front yard. And stay out of our backyard.” Putin has demanded that NATO cease expansion into Eastern Europe, which threatens only Russia, while also scaling back planned missile emplacements in those former Warsaw Pact states that are already members of the alliance. He also has called on the US to reduce harassing incursions by warships and strategic bombers along the Russian border and to cease efforts to insert military bases in the five ‘Stans along the Russian federation’s southern border. In other words, Russia believes that it should not have hostile military forces gathering along its borders, that it should have some kind of legally guaranteed and internationally endorsed strategic security zone such as the United States enjoys behind two oceans with friendly governments to north and south.

Buchanan concludes that there is much room for negotiating a serious agreement that will satisfy both sides, observing that the US now has through NATO untenable security arrangements with 28 European countries. He notes how “The day cannot be far off when the US is going to have to review and discard Cold War commitments that date to the 1940s and 1950s, and require us to fight a nuclear power such as Russia for countries that have nothing to do with our vital interests or our national security.”

Secretary of State Tony Blinken has been openly skeptical about the Russian proposals, arguing that Moscow is a threat to Europe, though the extent that the Biden administration will play hard ball over the details is difficult to assess. Blinken and NATO have already declared that they will continue their expansion into Eastern Europe and the White House is reportedly preparing harsh new sanctions against Russia if the talks are not successful. To be sure, Administration pushback may be a debating technique to moderate or even eliminate some of the demands, or there may actually be hard liners from the Center for New American Security who have the administration’s ear who want to confront Russia. Either way, both Blinken and Biden have warned the Russians “not to make a serious mistake over Ukraine,” also stating that there would be “massive” economic consequences if there were any attack by Russian troops. After a meeting with Germany’s new Foreign Minister, Blinken asserted last week that there would be no progress in diplomatic approaches to the problem as long as there is a Russian “gun pointed at Ukraine’s head.” In reality, of course, Moscow is 5,000 miles away from Washington and the truly dangerous pointed gun has been in the hands of NATO and the US right on Russia’s doorstep.

To be sure, fighting Russia is popular in some circles, largely a result of incessant negative media coverage about Putin and his government. Opinion polls suggest that half of all Americans favor sending troops to defend the Ukrainians. The Republicans, notably Senators Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio, appear to be particularly enthusiastic regarding going to war over Ukraine as well as with China over Taiwan and openly advocate both admitting Ukraine into NATO as well as sending troops and weapons as well as providing intelligence to assist Kiev. They argue that it is necessary to defend American democracy and also to maintain the US’s “credibility,” the last refuge of a scoundrel nation, as Daniel Larison observes , since Washington frequently “goes back on its word.” And then there are the crazies like Ohio Congressman Mike Turner who says that US troops must be sent to Ukraine to defend American democracy. Or Republican Senator from Mississippi Roger Wicker who favors a possible unilateral nuclear first-strike to “rain destruction on Russian military capability,” leading to a global conflict that wouldn’t be so bad as it would only kill 10 to 20 million Americans.

Russia has a right to be worried as something is brewing in Kazakhstan right now that just might be a replay of the US-supported NGO-instigated successful overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014. The Collective Security Treaty Organization members Russia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Armenia, have sent soldiers responding to the Kazakh government’s request for help. Unfortunately, US foreign policy is not only about Russia. The Taiwan issue continues to fester with a similar resonance to the Ukraine crisis. China, a rising power, increasingly wants to assert itself in its neighborhood while the US is trying to alternatively confront and contain it while also propping up relationships that evolved after the Korean War and during the Cold War. The status quo is unsustainable, but US moves to “protect” Taiwan are themselves destabilizing as they make the Chinese suspicious of American intentions and will likely lead to unnecessary armed conflict.

And let’s not ignore America’s continued devastation by sanctions and bombs of civilian populations in Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan and Yemen to punish the governments of those countries. And, of course there, is always Israel, good old loyal ally and greatly loved by all politicians and the media, Israel, the Jewish state. Biden continues to waffle on reentry into the Iran nuclear non-proliferation agreement, which is good for the US, under pressure from Israel and its domestic “Amen chorus.” Just last month, speaking at a Zionist Organization of America Gala, former CIA Director and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo intoned that “There is no more important task of the Secretary of State than standing for Israel and there is no more important ally to the United States than Israel.” Add to that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s unforgettable bleat about her love for Israel, “I have said to people when they ask me if this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain is our commitment to our aid… and I don’t even call it aid…our cooperation with Israel. That’s fundamental to who we are.”

You might ask how any American leader could so blatantly state that US interests are subordinate to those of a foreign country, but there we are. And it is tragic that our president is willing to sacrifice American military lives in support of interests that are completely fraudulent. The truth is that we have a government that in bipartisan fashion does everything ass backwards while the American people struggle to pay the bills and watch their quality of life and even their security go downhill. Again citing Vladimir Putin’s wisdom on the subject, one might observe that as early as 2007 at the Munich Security Conference, the Russian president said that the “lawless behavior” of the United States in insisting on global dominance and leadership did not respect the vital interests of other nations and undermined both the desire for and the mechanisms established to encourage peaceful relations. He got that right. That is the crux of the matter. There is neither credibility nor humanity to American foreign policy, and everyone knows that the United States and allies like Israel are basically rogue nations that obey no rules and respect no one else’s rights. This has been somewhat true since the Second World War but it has become routine practice in nearly all of America’s international relations since 9/11 and the real losers are the American people, who have to shoulder the burden of an increasingly feckless and hopelessly corrupt political class.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is

January 12, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , | 1 Comment