Aletho News


The problem with bougiecrats is that they just tick boxes, they don’t ever *think*

By Toby Rogers | January 26, 2022

The New York Times assigned four of their top national political reporters to write a long story about Biden’s First Pandemic Year. The article is an unwitting case study in everything that is wrong with the Biden administration, the public health establishment, and the corporate media.

“Highly respected infectious disease expert(TM)” Rochelle Walensky knows almost nothing about viruses nor infectious disease

From the article:

Dr. Rochelle Walensky was stunned. Working from her home outside Boston on a Friday night in late July, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had just learned from members of her staff that vaccinated Americans were spreading the coronavirus.

Vaccines had been the core of President Biden’s pandemic strategy from the moment he took office. But as Dr. Walensky was briefed about a cluster of breakthrough cases in Provincetown, Mass., the reality sank in. The Delta variant, which had ravaged other parts of the world, was taking hold in the United States. And being vaccinated would not, it turned out, prevent people from becoming infected with the variant or transmitting it.

It was a “heart sink” moment, Dr. Walensky recalled in a recent interview.

I am not a medical doctor nor scientist. But I’ve been warning since April 2020 that SARS-CoV-2 was not a good candidate for a vaccine because it mutates too fast. This was known to everyone who paid even minimal attention to the data. There has never been a successful vaccine for the common cold nor HIV — and SARS-CoV-2 was engineered to have pieces of both of those viruses. And the flu vaccine, depending on the year, is often less than 50% effective (some years the effectiveness drops into the teens or even single digits). All of these vaccines fail for the same reason that coronavirus vaccines are failing — the virus mutates too fast.

Did Rochelle Walensky honestly not know the rate at which this virus was mutating?

It sounds like they never contemplated the possibility that the vaccines might fail.

That also likely means that Walensky has no idea what antibody dependent enhancement is, why it’s a problem, nor does she know how to spot antibody dependent enhancement if it’s happening in the population.

Bougiecrats just execute the plan. They do not think. They just tick boxes. That is not what the U.S. needs in the midst of this crisis.

Fauci is a malevolent force inside the government and he is wrong about everything

We already knew this but the article drives it home:

Fauci pushed for a national vaccine passport system.

Fauci pushed for vaccine mandates for domestic air travel.

Fauci pushed for the vaccine mandates that eventually became the OSHA, CMS, and federal worker vaccine requirements. Thankfully the OSHA vaccine mandate was recently struck down by the Supreme Court and the federal worker mandate was stayed last Friday by a federal judge in Texas.

One reason that the Biden administration was not prepared for the Delta and Omicron variants was because Fauci assured them that “the vaccine push would be able to, for the most part, nullify a Delta surge.”

Fauci is literally the Pandemic’s Wrongest Man Elf.

Six people dictate coronavirus policy for 330,000,000 Americans. Five of the six are completely rotten

Biden’s Pandemic team consists of six people:

Jeff Zients, an economist and former management consultant with no scientific nor medical background;

Xavier Becerra, a lawyer with no scientific nor medical background;

Janet Woodcock, the woman who gave us the opioid epidemic that kills more Americans every year than the Vietnam War;

David Kessler, who is a decent guy (not sure how they let him on the team);

Tony Fauci, who funded the creation of the virus that killed more Americans than all foreign wars combined; and

Rochelle Walenksy, who looks like she’s always on the verge of a nervous breakdown and is clearly unfit for purpose.

This is the point that I keep coming back to again and again:

Would you rather have six captured bureaucrats imposing their diktats on 330,000,000 people? Or would you rather have the one-million professionally-active doctors and 210,000,000 adults in this country using logic and reason to solve this problem using their best judgement?

It is profoundly unAmerican to give six corrupt unelected bureaucrats this much power. And it is absolutely the wrong way to make scientific decisions. No wonder the Biden administration gets everything wrong when it comes to coronavirus.

Ron DeSantis lives rent free inside Biden’s head and he is the reason we do not have a national vaccine passport system

The article states that the Biden administration, in March of 2021, began planning for a national vaccine passport system. We all saw the trial balloons that they floated in the press. But then they scuttled the plan when they saw that Governor DeSantis opposed it and was using it to build opposition to the administration. The Biden administration fears losing to DeSantis in the 2024 election and so they have scaled back their totalitarianism somewhat in hopes of not giving him more ammunition.

The reporters at the NY Times are dumb fascist clowns that have their thumb on the scale for Pharma

The NY Times is one of the best jobs in journalism. And the four senior reporters assigned to this article exemplify the total intellectual and moral collapse of the bourgeoisie.

The first five paragraphs of the article are all about how the vaccine does not stop the Omicron variant. The very next sentence reads,

Mr. Biden and his team have gotten much right, including getting at least one dose of a vaccine into nearly 85 percent of Americans 12 and older…

Did they not read the five paragraphs before about how the vaccine does not work? How is an 85% vaccination rate a success when the vaccine does not actually stop the virus? In fact, the best evidence shows that these vaccines have negative efficacy, something that these crack “reporters” do not seem to realize.

Throughout the article, the reporters chide Biden for not pushing harder for vaccine and mask mandates and more testing. They claim “a chorus of voices inside and outside the government” pushing for such measures — but strangely they never cite any sources by name who are part of this “chorus”. Apparently that’s the script and they are sticking to it regardless of whether they have to manufacture such claims.

Furthermore these stenographers for the cartel never once ask about vaccine effectiveness/risks, the fact that most masks make no difference, and the 90% false-positive rate from tests that their own newspaper reported on in August 2020. I guess they don’t trust the NY Times either.

They are also addicted to the “overwhelmed hospitals” narrative — they just sprinkle it in for a dash of flavor whenever their rhetoric starts to sag. They never question the firing of doctors and nurses with natural immunity and critical thinking skills. Nor do they examine the possibility that vaccine failure and vaccine injury might contribute to whatever patient surges might exist.

They live inside the Pharma-directed metaverse and they have no plans to ever leave or question any of its assumptions.


The reason why RFK Jr., Del Bigtree, Alex Berenson, and Joe Rogan have bigger audiences than the NY Times is because they tell the truth.

The reason why the Biden administration is a complete and total failure is because it is filled with bougiecrats who do not think, they just execute the plan and wait around for their participation trophy.

None of the bourgeois institutions that caused this problem (from the corporate media to the government to the public health establishment) are capable of correcting course based on new data. They are guided by ideology, not facts. The only solution is revolution. Let’s make it happen.

January 26, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

COVID Vaccines Causing Miscarriages, Cancer and Neurological Disorders Among Military, DOD Data Show

By Pam Long | The Defender | January 26, 2022

Attorney Thomas Renz on Monday told a panel of experts that data provided to him by three whistleblowers show COVID-19 vaccines are causing catastrophic harm to members of the U.S. military while not preventing them from getting the virus.

Following Monday’s panel discussion on COVID vaccines and treatment protocols, led by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Renz summarized data obtained from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), the military’s longstanding epidemiological database of service members.

The data show:

  • Miscarriages increased 300% in 2021 over the previous five-year average.
  • Cancer increased 300% in 2021 over the previous five-year average.
  • Neurological disorders increased 1000% in 2021 over the past five-year average, increasing from 82,000 to 863,000 in one year.

The whistleblowers provided the data knowing they would face perjury charges if they submitted false statements to the court in legal cases pending against the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD).

Renz told the panel a “trifecta of data” from the DMED, the DOD’s military-civilian integrated health database, Project SALUS, along with human intelligence in the form of doctor-whistleblowers suggest the DOD and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention have withheld COVID vaccine surveillance data since September 2021.

“Our soldiers are being experimented on, injured and sometimes possibly killed,” Renz said.

Following Renz’s presentation, attorney Leigh Dundas reported evidence of the DOD doctoring data in DMED to conceal cases of myocarditis in service members vaccinated for COVID.

The military whistleblowers reported a DMED search of “acute myocarditis” resulted in 1,239 cases in August 2021, but the same search in January 2022 resulted in only 307 cases.

Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCollough, commenting on Renz’s presentation, told the panel myocarditis is being falsely described as mild and transient when in reality it causes permanent heart damage and is life-limiting in most cases.

The military did not take any safeguards for the most at-risk age group for vaccine-induced myocarditis — 18- to 24-year-olds.

Renz also highlighted a broader data set from Project SALUS, run by the DOD in cooperation with the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC), which sends weekly reports to the CDC.

Project SALUS analyzed data on 5.6 million Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 or older. Data were aggregated from Humetrix, a real-time data and analytics platform that tracks healthcare outcomes.

According to Renz, the Project SALUS data as of late last year show:

“71% of new cases are in the fully vaccinated, and 60% of hospitalizations are in the fully vaccinated. This is corruption at the highest level. We need investigations. The Secretary of Defense needs investigated. The CDC needs investigated.”

The Humetrix presentation summarizing the data in Project SALUS, “Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against the Delta variant among 5.6M Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older” (Sep. 28, 2021) has not been made public.

The Project SALUS report also included data on natural immunity, stating the vaccines have waning protection. The data also showed an upward trend of breakthrough cases suggesting booster shots could contribute to prolonging the pandemic.

“Breakthrough infection rates 5 to 6 months post-vaccination are twice as high as 3-4 months post-vaccination,” the report said.

According to the Humetrix overview of the Project SALUS data, Congress must investigate vaccine failure, along with increased risk reported for breakthrough cases (or vaccine failure) in North American Natives, Hispanics, Blacks, and males.

People with kidney disease, liver disease, heart disease and cancer treatment, along with people over age 75 are the most likely to experience breakthrough cases, while medical authorities advocate vaccines to these same populations to allegedly “protect the vulnerable.”

Project Salus reported the vaccines were only 41% effective. This low level of infection prevention needs to be analyzed against the counterweight of a threefold to tenfold increase in chronic disease signaled in DMED.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires only two adequate and controlled studies to approve a biologic, even if those studies are industry-sponsored.

The FDA now has data from the entirety of 3 million people employed by the DOD and 5 million people in Medicare. This data serves as independent substantiation that scientific fraud has occurred.

Based on this data, the FDA must revoke the Emergency Use Authorization for the ModernaPfizer and Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccines, and the Biologics License Application for Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine.

It would be wrong for the FDA to extrapolate the industry’s clinical trial data to pediatrics without halting the use of the vaccines and conducting an investigation based on this real-world data.

Watch Renz’s testimony here:

Pam Long is graduate of USMA at West Point and is an Army Veteran of the Medical Service Corps.

© 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 26, 2022 Posted by | Deception, War Crimes | , | 4 Comments

Americans’ Rejection of Coronavirus Shots Is a Reason for Hope for the Country

By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | January 26, 2022

For over a year, Americans have been subjected to relentless pressure to take experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots and, more recently, to even have the shots given to children who have a miniscule risk of becoming seriously sick or dying from coronavirus. The shots are widely available, free for the taking, and nonstop marketed by politicians, government bureaucrats, and people in the media as “safe and effective.”

But, many Americans have been smartly rejecting claims pushed on them by government and media. Americans have done their own investigating and found that the shots have known serious dangers, as well as additional likely serious dangers yet unknown because of the lack of proper examination of consequences of taking the rushed into distribution shots. Many Americans have also learned that the shots do not stop people from getting, spreading, and dying from coronavirus. Plus, many Americans know people who have been hurt by the shots.

A large percentage of Americans have just said no to the drug pushers from the beginning. So strong has been the conviction of many individuals against taking the purported miracle drugs that they have said “no” even though it means they will be fired from their jobs due to vaccine mandates and excluded from many activities due to vaccine passports.

Many other Americans, who took the initial shots after giving in to the pushers or after giving the pro-shots propaganda the benefit of the doubt, have since declared, “no more.” Some were hurt by the shots they took and do not want to go through more of the same or worse. Others investigated the shots, learning about the drugs’ safety and efficacy deficits. Others, who never bought the propaganda in the first place but allowed themselves to be pushed into the initial shots, are adamant in their rejection of more.

You will not find much objective discussion in the big money media about the safety and efficacy of the experimental coronavirus vaccine shots. But, you will find recognition that resistance to the vaccine push has been strong and widespread, even if the topic is brought up just to belittle the resisters. One example of that recognition is a Tuesday Associated Press article by Mae Anderson that begins with the following observations regarding the Americans choosing to decline taking the shots:

The COVID-19 booster drive in the U.S. is losing steam, worrying health experts who have pleaded with Americans to get an extra shot to shore up their protection against the highly contagious omicron variant.

Just 40% of fully vaccinated Americans have received a booster dose, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And the average number of booster shots dispensed per day in the U.S. has plummeted from a peak of 1 million in early December to about 490,000 as of last week.

Also, a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that Americans are more likely to see the initial vaccinations — rather than a booster — as essential.

‘It’s clear that the booster effort is falling short,’ said Jason Schwartz, a vaccine policy expert at Yale University.

Overall, the U.S. vaccination campaign has been sluggish. More than 13 months after it began, just 63% of Americans, or 210 million people, are fully vaccinated with the initial rounds of shots. Mandates that could raise those numbers have been hobbled by legal challenges.

Vaccination numbers are stagnant in states such as Wyoming, Idaho, Mississippi and Alabama, which have been hovering below 50%.

It seems to be quite frustrating for the big money media and authoritarians in government that so many Americans are choosing to make up their own minds not to take the shots, or not to allow the shots to be given to their children, instead of just doing as they are told. That exercise of independent decision making in the face of intense pressure to go along, though, reassures people who highly value freedom that there is yet hope for the country.

Copyright © 2022 by RonPaul Institute.

January 26, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Vaccine Site Crime Report – Greenwich Police, Lewisham Station

By The White Rose UK On 26/01/2022


Crime References 6029679/21 + Greenwich Police ref 3615315/21

Commander Aitkin or whosoever is now standing responsible for the Peace in Greenwich:

On Saturday 15th about 4PM a group of conscientious people representing the community visited the Clover vaccine centre on General Gordon Sq. We delivered to the chemists who appeared to be in charge of the site a Cease and Desist Notice. They were provided with evidence of grievous harms being caused to patients by both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca supposed “vaccines” being administered at the site.

They also received Government sourced references indicating that there is no evidence of an epidemic in Greenwich or anywhere else in England and Wales; and that the Government itself has designated Covid 19 non-significant. That is to say, there is no justification for the panic induced vaccination of the whole population with an experimental drug causing already horrific injuries. Unfortunately there was no one available to discuss with us in detail our legitimate concerns.

The fact that no qualified and knowledgeable health professional was present to advise and inform patients is in itself a breach of the Nuremberg Code and quashes any claim that informed consent and genuine free choice was available on site. The chemists refused to engage with us. A Sikh gentleman with responsibility for the volunteers serving as patient reception did speak to us in a respectful way. He accepted our grounds for being there and our right to submit evidence. It is your duty to reassure him and the volunteer team who must have been alarmed by what happened that all is well and they are not in ignorance parties to grievous bodily harms or even potential homicides.

The chemists called the Police in their confusion and a Constable Clarke and Constable Lockyer (1636) both from Bexleyheath station arrived eventually and studied the documents served on the vaccination operatives. They were on the phone for a long period and we assume they received instruction from superiors. When they spoke to us, it was immediately obvious they had not understood the seriousness of the situation. They had not understood the justice behind the Notice or the evidence provided in support of it. They were for some reason incapable of comprehending the implications of FOI 52339 issued by Greenwich Council and the one from Hazel Watson on behalf of Bexley Council – that there is no pandemic/epidemic/ medical emergency happening to justify the panic measures afflicting the whole community. We assume as dogsbodies and state apparatchiks and in contravention of their oaths of service that they had been directed to oppose our reasonable, rational and just request for the vaccinations to stop pending proper inquiry.

We understood there is now a live criminal investigation being conducted by the MET at Hammersmith Station – ref 6029679/21. In view of the serious nature of the crimes being alleged – it is reasonable for us to seek immediate suspension of the covid “vaccine” programmes before any more people are killed, incurably heart damaged, deafened, blinded or otherwise horribly afflicted.

We are especially concerned about gratuitous assault and injury being done to children and young people when there is no earthly reason for them to be drug treated. Constables Clarke and Lockyer claimed that taking the treatment was a matter of choice. This is untrue when in effect young people are either being bribed or blackmailed into the injection queue. Blackmail is a very serious offence and is part of the indictment being examined by the MET. Could you confirm the status of the Hammersmith inquiry? Could we remind you also about the local crime reference – 3615315/21 which at this point should also be live and be demanding your urgent and thorough address?

We have to question whether Constables and Clark told the truth when they claimed the Hammersmith investigation was not a live, criminal investigation—and a justification in itself for injections to be halted at the Clover Centre; or at least to allow grounds for Greenwich police discretion to act on the precautionary principle.

We request your immediate attention. If Constables Clark and Lockyer failed in their duty to maintain the Peace and protect the human rights of potentially endangered patients – we request you take immediate action and advise the Clover “vaccine” centre to cease injections until the community can be assured that all is well and the panic within the Authorities is not causing catastrophic health injuries.

Paul Ursell

Witnessed: M Kitzberger, R Cummin, Sue Johnstone

Supporters: M Ursell

January 26, 2022 Posted by | Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

NATO rejects Russia’s ‘red line’

RT | January 26, 2022

NATO has said it “will not compromise” on potential expansion into Ukraine, Georgia, and other former Soviet republics, as this clashes with the “core principles” of the alliance, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters on Wednesday.

The alliance’s response, which Stoltenberg said all 30 members agreed upon, was delivered to Moscow earlier in the day by the US ambassador, alongside Washington’s separate written note.

The US has asked Russia to keep the contents of its response private.

Stoltenberg, who was half an hour late to the scheduled online press event, outlined three basic topics that the NATO response touched on. One was re-establishing diplomatic ties between NATO and Russia, which he blamed Moscow for severing. The other was NATO’s readiness to “engage in dialogue” and “listen to Russian concerns,” while respecting the right of each country to choose its own security arrangements.

Russia should refrain from “aggression” aimed at NATO allies and withdraw from “Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova,” where it is not wanted, Stoltenberg said.

Ukraine insists that Moscow is “illegally occupying” Crimea, which voted to rejoin Russia after the 2014 coup in Kiev. Russia has also recognized the independence of two breakaway regions of Georgia that Tbilisi tried to seize by force in 2008, and has maintained peacekeepers in the disputed Moldovan region of Transnistria since 1991.

The third area of possible cooperation listed by Stoltenberg involves “risk reduction” and transparency agreements on exercises, as well as arms control proposals that he argued have been so effective previously. Since 2001, the US has unilaterally exited the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty, the Open Skies treaty, and the intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) treaty, claiming without evidence that Russia was in violation of them.

“A political solution is still possible, but, of course, Russia has to engage in good faith,” Stoltenberg said, accusing Moscow of “aggression” against Ukraine since 2014.

Stoltenberg insisted that “NATO is a defensive alliance and we do not seek confrontation,” but repeatedly said that the alliance “cannot and will not compromise on principles” such as the right of every country to join. That decision rests solely with the applicant country and NATO members, now 30 in number, he said.

Asked about the reluctance that some NATO members have reportedly displayed in recent weeks, Stoltenberg maintained that “all allies are on board, all our allies have agreed” with the written response submitted to Russia. Croatia’s president has publicly said he would withdraw all troops from NATO in case of war in Ukraine, while Germany has reportedly denied the use of its airspace to UK weapons deliveries to Kiev.

Stoltenberg also reassured reporters that NATO has “plans in place we can activate on very short notice” if Russia “invades” Ukraine, with the lead element of 5,000 troops from the French-led NATO Response Force (NRF) on high alert, and the US assigning 8,400 troops on high readiness to the force as well. The Pentagon has previously said that some 8,500 US troops have been placed on heightened readiness status, but the decision had not been made to deploy them yet.

January 26, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , | 3 Comments

Myocarditis Risk Increases Up To 133-FOLD Following Covid Vaccination, Study Finds

By Will Jones | The Daily Sceptic | January 26, 2022

study published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) has found that the risk of myocarditis (heart inflammation) after receiving an mRNA Covid vaccine (Pfizer or Moderna) was dramatically increased across many age groups and was highest after the second vaccination dose in young men.

The study found myocarditis reports were highest after the second vaccination dose in males aged 12 to 15 years at 70.7 per million Pfizer doses, compared to an expected rate of 0.53 per million, amounting to a 133-fold increase; in males aged 16 to 17 years at 105.9 per million Pfizer doses, compared to an expected rate of 1.34 per million, amounting to a 79-fold increase; and in young men aged 18 to 24 years at 52.4 per million Pfizer doses and 56.3 per million Moderna doses, compared to an expected rate of 1.76 per million, amounting to a 30-fold and 32-fold increase respectively. The full results are shown in the table below and a selection are depicted in the chart above.

The study comprised a review of reports of myocarditis to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) that occurred after mRNA Covid vaccination between December 2020 and August 2021 in people over 12 years old. The researchers adjudicated and summarised the reports and compared the rates to expected rates of myocarditis using 2017-2019 data. For those under 30 they conducted medical record reviews and clinician interviews to investigate clinical presentation, test results, treatment, and early outcomes.

They found that out of 192,405,448 individuals receiving a total of 354,100,845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine doses during the study period, there were 1,991 reports of myocarditis to VAERS, of which 1,626 met their case definition of myocarditis. Among the 1,626 cases, the median age was 21 years and the median time to symptom onset was two days. Males comprised 82% of the myocarditis cases for whom sex was reported, and where timing was reported, 82% occurred after the second vaccination dose.

The charts showing myocarditis cases by age and symptom onset are shown below.

Oster et al 2022

Oster et al 2022

Regarding deaths, the researchers write:

Among persons younger than 30 years of age, there were no confirmed cases of myocarditis in those who died after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination without another identifiable cause and there was one probable case of myocarditis [in those who died] but there was insufficient information available for a thorough investigation. At the time of data review, there were two reports of death in persons younger than 30 years of age with potential myocarditis that remain under investigation and are not included in the case counts.

The authors note that a difference between vaccine-related myocarditis and virus-related myocarditis was that the former comes on more quickly; they also note that it appears to be milder:

The onset of myocarditis symptoms after exposure to a potential immunological trigger was shorter for COVID-19 vaccine-associated cases of myocarditis than is typical for myocarditis cases diagnosed after a viral illness. Cases of myocarditis reported after COVID-19 vaccination were typically diagnosed within days of vaccination, whereas cases of typical viral myocarditis can often have indolent courses with symptoms sometimes present for weeks to months after a trigger if the cause is ever identified.

The major presenting symptoms appeared to resolve faster in cases of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination than in typical viral cases of myocarditis. Even though almost all individuals with cases of myocarditis were hospitalised and clinically monitored, they typically experienced symptomatic recovery after receiving only pain management. In contrast, typical viral cases of myocarditis can have a more variable clinical course. For example, up to 6% of typical viral myocarditis cases in adolescents require a heart transplant or result in mortality.

To what extent are these differences a reporting artefact, where adverse event reports are only made when a reaction occurs within days of a vaccination, but otherwise the link is unnoticed or dismissed?

The authors note that underreporting is likely, “given the high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination”, and therefore “the actual rates of myocarditis per million doses of vaccine are likely higher than estimated”.

Another recent study found post-vaccination myocarditis adverse events were underestimated by the VAERS definition.

A third recent study, from Oxford University, found that myocarditis risk following Covid vaccination was up to 14 times higher than that following COVID-19 infection. It has been suggested that that study underestimated the risk following vaccination. It should also be noted that since vaccination provides little protection against infection the idea that the risk following vaccination is instead of and not as well as the risk following infection is not sound.

Myocarditis is not the only serious side-effect of these vaccines, and the vaccines do not protect well against infection or transmission. This means it is increasingly clear that the current Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines do not have the efficacy and safety profile that would make giving them to children and young people worthwhile or ethical.

January 26, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Flawed CDC Study Wrongly Concludes COVID Vaccines Safe in Pregnancy

By Madhava Setty, M.D. and Jennifer Smith, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 25, 2022

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) earlier this month recommended women who are pregnant, recently pregnant, who are trying to become pregnant now or who might become pregnant in the future get the COVID-19 vaccine.

The CDC made the recommendation after concluding, in a Jan. 7 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, that data support the safety of COVID vaccination during pregnancy.

By comparing COVID vaccination during pregnancy to those unvaccinated during pregnancy, the agency determined COVID vaccines were not associated with preterm birth or with delivering a child who was born smaller or less developed than expected, also known as small-for-gestational-age (SGA).

In this article, we examine flaws in the CDC study that led to the agency’s wrongful conclusion regarding COVID vaccines for pregnant women.

First, some background.

Including pregnant women in clinical trials

Pregnancy is a precarious time not just for the expectant mother but most importantly the developing fetus. Expectant mothers are advised not to drink alcohol or caffeinated beverages and not to eat raw foods such as sushi and deli meats.

A lot of medications are contraindicated during pregnancy including simple pain meds like non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (Ibuprofen), antidiarrheals, decongestants, antihistamines, nasal sprays and expectorants.

Women are advised not to take these medications during pregnancy because they pose potential risks to the developing fetus.

For decades, expectant mothers have been considered a vulnerable group to be shielded from potential harms of research for the sake of their fetuses’ health.

In 1977, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued guidelines excluding pregnant women and women “with childbearing potential” from phase I and phase II clinical trials, where new drugs are tested for safety and efficacy.

This view stemmed, in part, from tragedies caused by two now-infamous drugs that were widely prescribed to pregnant women in the mid-20th century: thalidomide, which caused thousands of children around the world to be born with flipper-like limbs and other birth defects, and diethylstilbestrol, which was linked to higher rates of cancer in both mothers and the daughters born to them.

This view changed however in 1993, with the passage of the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act, which sought to increase gender and racial diversity in clinical trials.

Federal regulations currently require any study involving pregnant women to meet 10 criteria, including that, “where scientifically appropriate,” data first be collected on pregnant animals and non-pregnant human subjects to assess risk, and that any risk to mother or fetus be “the least possible for achieving the objectives of the research.”

Reproduction toxicity studies in animal models hinted at dangers early on

While the companies developing the COVID-19 vaccines have done preliminary studies in animals, their studies were limited to rodents. The vaccine makers did not conduct studies on non-human primates, recognized as the closest animal models to humans regarding genetics, physiology and behavior.

Nevertheless, Moderna’s own Assessment Report to the European Medicines Agency Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use on March 11, 2021, included a study for reproductive and developmental toxicology on female rats during gestation.

The report noted (page 50: Reproduction Toxicity) an increase in the number of fetuses with common skeletal variations of one or more rib nodules and one or more wavy ribs. Additionally, the number of pups born to vaccinated rats was lower than the number in the unvaccinated rats.

Most importantly, the authors explicitly stated, “In this study, no vaccine dose was administered during the early organogenesis [the period during embryonic development of an animal when the main body organs are formed], to address the direct embryotoxic effect of the components of the vaccine formulation.”

One month earlier, Pfizer reported in its Feb. 19, 2021, Assessment Report to the same committee that pregnant rats demonstrated a greater-than-2x increase in pre-implantation loss in exposed animals compared to controls.

The authors of the Pfizer report further stated (Page 50: Reproduction Toxicity) that “a very low incidence of gastroschisis, mouth/jaw malformations, right-sided aortic arch, and cervical vertebrae abnormalities” occurred in litters of exposed rats, and that these findings were within historical control data.

This finding brings up an important question: Why compare the incidence of these major congenital abnormalities with “historical” controls and not with the controls themselves?

As late as April 2021, the CDC still maintained there was limited data surrounding the safety of COVID vaccines for women who were pregnant or breastfeeding. The agency advised women who were pregnant or breastfeeding to consult with their physician before getting vaccinated.

But were obstetricians made aware of the potential safety signals appearing in animal models?

And how were physicians able to decide whether or not a COVID vaccine was appropriate for their pregnant patients if the CDC wasn’t offering any guidance at that time?

CDC’s latest study: a closer look at the details

Using data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink — a CDC vaccine safety monitoring system the public cannot access — the CDC study identified 46,079 pregnant women with live births and gestational age.

Of those, 10,064 (21.8%) received ≥1 COVID vaccine doses during pregnancy from Dec. 15, 2020, to July 22, 2021.

Nearly all (9,892, or 98.3%) of the pregnant women included in the study were vaccinated during the second or third trimester.

The authors found that among unvaccinated women, the rate of premature births was 7% compared to 4.9% in those who had received either one or both vaccine doses.

The rate of small-for-gestational-age in both vaccinated and unvaccinated mothers was equal (8.2%).

The authors thus conclude that “… receipt of COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy was not associated with increased risk for preterm birth or SGA at birth.”

5 flaws in the CDC analysis

On closer examination, we identified the following five deficits in the CDC study:

  • Cohorts were not well matched. There were greater than three times more African American women in the unvaccinated group than in the vaccinated group. The CDC acknowledges the African American race is a risk factor for preterm birth and may be as high as 50% greater than in white women.

There were also greater than 50% more mothers in the unvaccinated group classified as having inadequate prenatal care. Obesity, also a risk for preterm birth, was also overrepresented in the unvaccinated group (29% vs 23.9%) compared to the vaccinated.

  • No adjustment for mothers with a history of preterm birth of SGA. The authors did not address this potential confounder.
  • COVID infection, another potentially important confounder, was present in the unvaccinated group at a 25% greater incidence than in the vaccinated cohort (3.5% vs 2.8%). There was no mention of when in the pregnancy the infection was detected. Viral infections early in pregnancy are particularly deleterious to the developing fetus. This should have been an important risk factor to quantify independently, especially when establishing a risk-versus-benefit ratio of vaccination.
  • The CDC data indicate a 7.7% risk of preterm birth in mothers having received one of two vaccines. This represents a 10% greater risk than in unvaccinated pregnancies. This increased risk is not mentioned in the discussion. Moreover, the adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR) in this population is given as 0.78, indicating a 22% risk reduction in preterm birth in vaccinated mothers, seemingly conflicting with the raw data. (A request for clarification from the corresponding author was not answered).
  • The most glaring deficit in the CDC analysis is the scarcity of vaccinated mothers who received a vaccine in the first trimester in this study. The risk of untoward outcomes (birth defects, miscarriages) in pregnancy is greatest during the first third of pregnancy, a time when crucial embryonic structures are developing. This is the period of time where maternal health is particularly important, and exposure to toxins, infections and certain medicines must be minimized or eliminated entirely if possible.

Only 172 of more than 10,000 (1.7%) vaccinated mothers in the study received a vaccine in the first trimester. The incidence of preterm birth and SGA were not mentioned in this small cohort because of limited numbers.

Nonetheless, the authors arrive at the stunning conclusion: “CDC recommends COVID-19 vaccination for women who are pregnant, recently pregnant (including those who are lactating), who are trying to become pregnant now, or who might become pregnant in the future (4) to reduce the risk for severe COVID-19–associated outcomes.”

CDC not required to provide access to its data or subject its analysis to peer review

The Vaccine Safety Datalink uses data reported from nine large healthcare organizations, serving only 3% of the U.S. population. The system collects electronic health data from each participating site.

This database is accessible only to researchers outside the CDC and only by request. Requests may be accommodated after a research proposal is submitted and approved by the Research Data Center of the National Center for Health Statistics.

CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports can, as in the case of the agency’s analysis of COVID vaccine safety in pregnant women, be based on data that is not necessarily publicly available.

The agency’s analyses are not subject to peer review. Nevertheless, the reports are often widely cited as the official scientific position.


The CDC’s determination that COVID vaccination is safe in pregnant women is unfounded.

Cohorts were poorly matched. There was an inexcusably low representation of women who were vaccinated early in their pregnancy in their analysis. This is a period where any exposure to medical interventions will have a greater potential for risk to the fetus.

Broadly recommending vaccination for all pregnant women including those who are trying to become pregnant is particularly unwarranted.

This report places the CDC’s purported commitment to its mission of disease control and prevention on full display. The agency’s conclusions arrive more than a full year after the CDC authorized COVID vaccinations and are based on retrospective data alone.

In other words, the CDC is willing (and apparently allowed) to make safety determinations only after the experimental vaccines have been widely and indiscriminately deployed.

This is a shocking departure from the higher standards of prudence that are demanded during pregnancy, a time where two lives are potentially at risk and poor outcomes can lead to a lifetime of potential consequences.

It should be noted that several of the authors of this study reported potential conflicts of interest.

One author reported institutional research funding from Pfizer, and another from Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. A third author has a career grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Madhava Setty, M.D. is senior science editor for The Defender.

Jennifer Smith, Ph.D. holds a doctoral degree in mIcrobiology and molecular cell sciences.

© 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 26, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Bulgaria insists it’s a loyal NATO ally, but won’t send troops to Ukraine

RT | January 26, 2022

Bulgaria is a “loyal ally in NATO” and the alliance’s unity is the best response to the current crisis over Ukraine, Prime Minister Kiril Petkov said on Wednesday, amid conflicting reports on Sofia’s participation in the US military buildup in Eastern Europe.

Petkov’s government voted on Wednesday to follow the “Bulgarian strategy” of reducing tensions between NATO and Russia, including “absolutely all options for resolving this dispute by diplomatic means,” according to the state news agency BTA.

The strategy will be based on rebuilding the Bulgarian military, Petkov said. Defense Minister Stefan Yanev explained that the “top priority” will be investing in building a battalion combat team, a unit of around 1,000 soldiers.

Yanev would not comment on reports by Bulgarian National Radio that Sofia would not accept the deployment of 1,000 US soldiers on its soil, but would be fine with French troops instead. This was reported early on Wednesday by BNR correspondent in Brussels, Angelina Piskova, who quoted a “well-informed diplomatic source.”

The minister said such a thing has not been discussed on the political level, according to BNR.

Local media reported that Yanev also told lawmakers that Bulgarian soldiers won’t fight in Ukraine without parliamentary approval, which he “does not see coming.”

Earlier on Wednesday, CNN reported that Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania were in discussions with the US to accept 1,000 American troops each, as part of Washington’s effort to “reassure” NATO members in Eastern Europe and “deter” the alleged Russian invasion of Ukraine. The US intelligence has heralded such an invasion since late October, though Moscow dismissed it as “fake news.”

Speaking before the parliamentary defense committee on Tuesday, Yanev said that neither Russia nor anyone else is preparing to invade Bulgaria, and urged the lawmakers to “reduce tensions, stop reading the foreign press, and stop speculating.”

January 26, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Russia unveils military plans in Latin America

Putin has agreed on a new collaboration with Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua

RT | January 26, 2022

Russian President Vladimir Putin has agreed with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua to develop partnerships in a range of areas, including stepping up military collaboration, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has announced.

Speaking on Wednesday in an appearance in front of the Duma – Russia’s parliament – Lavrov reported that Putin had talked recently with the leaders of the three Central American countries, and that they had agreed to work together to strengthen their strategic cooperation.

“President Putin held recent telephone conversations with his colleagues from these three governments, with whom we are very close and friendly, and they agreed to look at further ways to deepen our strategic partnership in all areas, with no exceptions,” Lavrov stated. He noted that Russia already has close relations with these countries in many spheres, “including military and military-technical.”

Asked about the prospects of increased military cooperation with the three countries, Lavrov answered, “for the immediate future, we are counting on regular meetings of the corresponding committees.”

Earlier this month, Moscow’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov was asked about the possibility of sending troops to Latin America, and he refused to rule out the possibility. “It’s the American style to have several options for its foreign and military policy,” he said. “That’s the cornerstone of that country’s powerful influence in the world.”

“The president of Russia has spoken multiple times on the subject of what the measures could be, for example involving the Russian Navy, if things are set on the course of provoking Russia, and further increasing the military pressure on us by the US,” he went on. “We don’t want that. The diplomats must come to an agreement.”

United States National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan responded, noting that Russian military activity in Latin America had not been a point of discussion at recent security talks, but said that the US would act “decisively” if it did happen

Leaders from Russia and the US have been holding negotiations recently to attempt to de-escalate the situation around Ukraine, which Washington has accused Moscow of planning to invade. The Kremlin has denied that it has any aggressive intentions and has asked for written guarantees that NATO, the US-led military bloc, will not expand to Ukraine or Georgia, two countries that share borders with Russia.

January 26, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | 1 Comment

Lavrov Accuses the United States of Pushing Ukraine to Provocations against Russia

Al-Manar | January 26, 2022

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday that Moscow did not want talks over Ukraine and its own security concerns to be made longer by including the European Union [EU] or the Organization of Security and Cooperation [OSCE] in Europe in them.

He made the comments to the State Duma or lower house of parliament.

Lavrov also reiterated Moscow’s stance that it would take unspecified “appropriate measures” if it did not receive a constructive answer from the United States and NATO on security guarantees it is demanding.

“Moscow will take appropriate measures to respond to the West’s negligence of Russian demands regarding security guarantees,” Lavrov said

Russia is expecting Washington to respond in writing this week to its proposals for guarantees.

Lavorv stated, “Moscow will not allow an infinite delay in discussions about security guarantees’ proposal”.

The Russian FM further said that “Washington is pushing Kiev to direct provocations against Russia,” asserting that the US “is trying to punish Russia and China, and the US apparatuses are provoking the two countries”.

He concluded by saying, “Washington and its European allies are doubling their efforts to contain Russia”.

January 26, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | 3 Comments

Satellite Images of Russia – A Puzzlement

By Walrus | Turcopolier | January 26, 2022

The Australian ABC has today posted an article syndicated from AP entitled “Here’s what sanctions the US could impose on Russia if it invades Ukraine”

This suggests, charmingly, that among other targets for sanctions, President Putins alleged partner might be a suitable victim.

However while Alina Kabaeva is most attractive, that is not the image that quite caught my eye.

This one: “A satellite image of a Russian troop build-up at Klimovo, Russia, 13 kilometres north of the Russia-Ukraine border.(Supplied: Satellite image ©2022 Maxar Technologies)”

Google suggests this is one of a series referenced by a Radio Free Europe article “Military Buildup: New Images Capture Russian Armor Massing Near Ukraine”:

This provides helpful images of the aforesaid build up. With reference to these images, taken on January 19 2022, an amateur makes the following comments:

Image 1 – A full vehicle park at Yelnya, 150 miles from Ukraine. Two of the tanks have been running engines, they are the ones not covered by snow the rest are dead cold. What would one expect for daily vehicle checks for an active unit? Yelnya is an established base for at least seven years.

Image 2 and image 5 show an equipment store at Klimovo, some 30 kilometers from the Ukraine border. the comment on image 5 states: “Military equipment massed (I love that emotive word) at the Klimovo storage facility on January 19. Older imagery from Google Maps of the same location shows a fraction of the military vehicles present.“

This links to a google image of an empty facility which PROVES that massing has occurred.

There is just one problem; inspection of that location with Google Earth Pro shows that the ’empty” image date is 9/13/2014! Eight years ago.

I cannot comment on the other images, but I’m puzzled by what I’m seeing and how it supports the idea of a massive build up.

Could others please examine these images?

January 26, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | | 2 Comments

Populists on the right are now openly challenging Republican war lust

No more lockstep: conservatives aren’t afraid of being called names as they question America’s interest in Ukraine


The fight on the right for what constitutes a conservative or Republican foreign policy continues. This time the battlefront is Russia and Ukraine.

That there is a fissure on this issue among conservatives is in a way, a big deal, showing that the “America First” restraint approach that garnered support among the base didn’t go away completely when power changed hands in Washington and its chief advocate, Donald Trump, left town. Unfortunately, many Republicans have gone back to form and are talking like it’s the post 9/11-era — as if Trump’s criticisms of George W. Bush’s wars and nation-building had no effect on their party whatsoever.

First up, habitually hawkish GOP Congressman Dan Crenshaw recently told Fox News that “there needs to be clear consequences for what (Russia does) because we’ve failed to deter and now you’re inviting conflict.”

Sounding like a Bush-Cheney-era neoconservative, Crenshaw added, “It’s a very bad situation and we’ve left ourselves without many options as a result.”

One doesn’t have to ponder long about what Crenshaw thinks of the military option.

Republican Congressman Michael McCaul had a similar message, telling CNN last week, “I don’t think we’re providing the deterrence necessary to stop Putin from invading Ukraine, the breadbasket of Russia.”

What kind of “deterrence” does McCaul want to see?

Republican Senator Joni Ernst also joined the hawks, telling CNN, “When it comes to pushing back against Russia, we need to show strength and not be in a position of doctrine of appeasement, which seems to be how President Biden has worked his administration.”

Popular Fox News personality Tucker Carlson apparently had enough of such talk, and cited both Crenshaw and McCaul’s interviews in his opening monologue last week and Ernst’s on Monday night. Carlson warned his viewers that the U.S. was being pushed toward a new war by the usual self-interested suspects, which included politicians, the media, and the defense industry.

“Those are our leaders, totally ignorant, just reading the script. It’d be nice to hear someone in the press corps, because it’s their job, ask the obvious follow up, which would be: Why exactly, Sen. Ernst, do you believe it’s so vital to send more lethal aid to Ukraine and to “go ahead and impose” more sanctions on Russia? Why? How would she answer that question?

We’ll never know how she’d answer, because no one in the media would ever ask her.

In last week’s monologue he cited prominent Democrats like Rep. Adam Schiff saying basically the same thing as Crenshaw and McCaul on Ukraine. “Oh, they’re all red in the face, but it’s not the usual partisan chorus. This is the entire choir. You just saw representatives from every faction in Washington, from Adam Schiff to Dan Crenshaw, not as different as they seem, and all the dummies in between. And all of them are promoting war against Russia on behalf of our new and deeply beloved ally, the government of Ukraine,” he mocked.

This week, suddenly more conservatives and Republicans began speaking out against the prospect of U.S. military action in the region.

“The United States should not be involved in any future war in Ukraine,” charged libertarian populist Republican Congressman Thomas Massie on Monday.

“The neocons/warmongers have spent years stoking the new cold war with Russia and have now brought us to the brink in Ukraine — this serves their own interests, and lines the pocket of the Military Industrial Complex with trillion$,” tweeted right-wing friendly Democrat and former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. “Let’s not be sheep.”

Populist Republican U.S. Senate candidate and “Hillbilly Elegy” author J.D. Vance tweeted on Monday, “Billions spent on the Kennedy school, grand strategies seminars, and the Georgetown school of foreign service has bought us an elite that’s about to blunder us into a Ukraine war.”

Veteran and Conservative Virginia State Rep. Nick Freitas on Sunday accused the Biden administration of potentially getting America into a war as a distraction, tweeting, “Another Foreign War… When you absolutely, positively, have to distract the general public from the failure of your domestic policies.”

Charlie Kirk, leader of the conservative youth group Turning Point USA, also weighed in, tweeting Monday, “You should be against going to War with Russia.”

Kirk added, “Why is the President of the United States willing to send Americans to die protecting European Sovereignty? If our NATO ‘Allies’ aren’t even willing to fund their obligations and surge their own troops to protect their borders, why should we?”

With a split senate and Democrats controlling the House and Executive Branch, what the U.S. does or doesn’t do in Ukraine is largely in President Biden’s hands. And obviously, being against a Democratic president’s wars is easier for Republicans than when their own party is sitting in the White House. This was apparent when Republicans felt emboldened to check President Obama on his Syria, and to some extent his Libya interventions.

But Americans are more tired of war than ever, which is why Trump’s views on global policing and nation building did so well with GOP voters. This may be more than just who holds all the marbles. With Republicans predicted to do well in the 2022 midterms and the potential for turning the tables in 2024, the base is critical, and where it stands on foreign policy could matter quite a deal in the near future. Will the GOP look more like George W. Bush or reflect what Donald Trump often said about war, even if he didn’t always follow through?

At a minimum the foreign policy temperature on the right is not exactly where it once was, and whatever impact “America First” continues to have on Republicans, it’s a long way from all of them uniformly accusing anyone in their party of “blaming America first’”for even daring to question U.S. foreign policy.

January 26, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , | 1 Comment