Aletho News


A Brave New World Without Rights: Ending Mandates Does Not Strip Government of the Ability to Do This Again

By Julius Ruechel | February 9, 2022

The ongoing Truckers for Freedom convoy in Ottawa has triggered a shockwave that is reaching all around the world. Even as our authoritarian federal regime continues to double down on measures and threatens to use brute force tactics against peaceful protesters, many provinces are nervously beginning to lay out a timeline for ending mandates.

But there is something important missing from the conversation surrounding the end of mandates. If the mandates are simply dropped today without calling out the underlying legal and ethical fallacy that was used to justify them, government overreach will have become normalized. We will be left without the legal protections to stop them from doing this to us again after the truckers go home. All it will take to put us back in a cage is for the government to point at the next wave, the next virus variant, or the next non-Covid emergency. We will have normalized that our rights, our freedoms, our bodily autonomy, and even access to our lives are conditional privileges, subject to opinion polls and technocratic impulses, and that they can be withdrawn again at any time, “for our safety.”

In March of 2020, in violation of the principles embedded in our constitutions, governments around the world convinced citizens to give their leaders and public institutions the authority to overrule individual rights in order to “flatten the curve.” That impulse went unchallenged under the false assumption that human rights violations could be justified as long as the benefits to the majority outweighed the costs to the minority. By accepting this excuse for overriding unconditional rights, we transformed ourselves into an authoritarian police state where “might makes right”. That is the moment when all the checks and balances in our scientific and democratic institutions stopped functioning.

Liberal democracy was built around the principle that individual rights must be unconditional. In other words, they are meant to supersede the authority of government. Consequently, individual rights (such as bodily autonomy) were meant to serve as checks and balances on government power. They were meant to provide a hard limit to what our government can do to us without our individual consent.

If the government cannot override your rights to bend you to its will, then it will be forced to try to convince you by talking with you. That forces government to be transparent and to engage in meaningful debate with critics. Your ability to say NO, and to have your choice respected, is the difference between a functioning liberal democracy and an authoritarian regime.

The natural instinct of fearful people is to control those around them. Unconditional rights force people to negotiate voluntary participation in collective solutions. Thus, unconditional rights prevent the formation of echo chambers and provide an important counter-weight to rein in uncontrolled panic. When no-one has the option to use the brute force of State power to force others to submit to what they think is “the right thing to do”, then the only path forward is to keep talking to everyone, including to “fringe minorities” with “unacceptable views”. When we allow rights to become conditional, it is virtually a certainty that during a crisis, panicked citizens and opportunistic politicians will give in to their worst impulses and trample those who disagree with them.

Unconditional individual rights prevent governments from taking unwilling citizens on crusades. They prevent scientific institutions from transforming themselves into unchallengeable “Ministries of Truth” that can double down on their mistakes to avoid accountability. They ensure that the checks and balances that make science and democracy work do not break down in the chaos of a crisis. In the heat of an emergency when policy decisions are often made on the fly, unconditional rights are often the only safeguards to protect minorities from panicked mobs and self-anointed kings.

If we allow our leaders to normalize the idea that rights can be switched off during emergencies or when political leaders decide that “the science is settled”, then we are giving the government terrifying and unlimited power over us. It gives those who control the levers of power the authority to turn off access to your life. That turns the competition for power into a zero-sum game: the winners become masters, the losers become serfs. It means you can no longer afford to allow the other side to win an election, at any cost, nor agree to a peaceful transfer of power, because if you lose the winning team becomes the master of your destiny. And so, a zero-sum game of brutal power politics is set in motion. Unconditional individual rights are the antidote to civil war. Liberal democracy collapses without them.

Withdrawing mandates because “the Omicron variant is mild” or because “the costs of continuing the measures outweigh the benefits” does not undo what has been normalized and legitimized. If the legitimacy of mandates is not overturned, you will not be going back to your normal life. It may superficially look similar to your life before Covid, but in reality you will be living in a Brave New World where governments temporarily grant privileges to those who conform with the government’s vision of how we should live. You will no longer be celebrating your differences, cultivating your individuality, or making your own free choices. Only conformity will enable you to exist. You will be living under a regime in which any new “crisis” can serve as justification to impose restrictions on those who don’t “get with the program” as long as mobs and technocrats think the restrictions are “reasonable”. You will no longer be the master of your own life. A golden cage is still a cage if someone else controls the lock on the door.

Politicians and public health authorities MUST be forced to acknowledge that mandates are a violation of civil liberties. The public MUST be confronted by the fact that liberal democracy ceases to exist without the unconditional (inalienable) safeguards of individual rights and freedoms. The public MUST recognize that science ceases to function when mandates can be used to cut off scientific debates. Our governments and our fellow citizens MUST be made to understand that unconditional rights are especially important during a crisis.

If the legal and ethical fallacies that were used to justify mandates are not called out as inexcusable violations of our constitutional rights, we will have inadvertently normalized the illiberal idea that, as long as someone in a lab coat says it’s okay, this can be done to us again, at any time, whether to fight the next wave of Covid, to take away freedoms to fight “climate change”, to seize assets to solve a government debt crisis, or simply to socially engineer outcomes according to whatever our leaders define as a “fairer and more equitable world”.

How we navigate the end of mandates determines whether we win our freedom or whether we allow our leaders to normalize a Brave New World with conditional rights that can be turned off again during the next “emergency”.


February 13, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | , , | 4 Comments

They Are Still Defending Lockdowns

By Jeffrey A. Tucker | Brownstone Institute | February 13, 2022

Fifteen years ago, writers schooled in computer science began to imagine various totalitarian schemes for pandemic control. Experienced public health officials in 2006 warned that this would lead to disaster. Donald Henderson, for example, went through

Still, a decade and a half later, governments all over the world tried lockdowns anyway. And sure enough, since April of 2020, scholars have observed that these lockdown policies haven’t worked. The politicians preached, the cops enforced, citizens shamed each other, and businesses and schools did their best to comply with all the strictures. But the virus kept going with seeming disregard for all these antics.

Neither oceans of sanitizer, nor towers of plexiglass, nor covered mouths and noses, nor crowd avoidance, nor the seeming magic of six feet of distance, nor even mandated injections, caused the virus to go away or otherwise be suppressed.

The evidence is in. Restrictions are not associated with any particular set of virus mitigation goals. Forty studies have shown no connection between the policy (egregious violations of human liberty) and the intended outcomes (diminishing the overall disease impact of the pathogen).

You can forget about “causal inference” here because there is an absence of correlation of policy and outcomes at all. You can do a deeper dive and find 400 studies showing that the impositions on basic freedoms did not achieve the intended result but instead produced terrible public-health outcomes.

The two years of the hell into which hundreds of governments simultaneously plunged the globe achieved nothing but economic, social, and cultural destruction. Very obviously, this realization is shocking, and suggests a crying need for a reassessment of the power and influence of the people who did this.

This reassessment is happening now, all over the world.

A major frustration for those of us who have denounced lockdowns (which goes by many names and takes many forms) is that these studies have not exactly rocked the headlines. Indeed, they have been buried for the better part of two years.

Among the ignored studies was a December 2020 examination of light and voluntary measures (discouraging large gatherings, isolating the sick, generally being careful) vs. heavy and forced measures. This piece by Bendavid et al. observes some effects on spread from light measures but nothing statistically significant from heavy measures such as stay-at-home (or shelter-in-place) orders.

We do not question the role of all public health interventions, or of coordinated communications about the epidemic, but we fail to find an additional benefit of stay- at-home orders and business closures. The data cannot fully exclude the possibility of some benefits. However, even if they exist, these benefits may not match the numerous harms of these aggressive measures. More targeted public health interventions that more effectively reduce transmissions may be important for future epidemic control without the harms of highly restrictive measures.

The most recent meta-analysis from Johns Hopkins University (Jonas Herby of the Center for Political Studies in Copenhagen, Denmark, Lars Jonung of Lund University, and Steve Hanke of Johns Hopkins) seems to have achieved some measure of media attention. It focuses in particular on the effects of heavy interventions on mortality, finding little to no relationship between policies and severe disease outcomes.

The attention given to this meta-analysis seems to have annoyed the small cabal of academics who still defend lockdowns. A website called HealthFeedBack blasted the methods of the study while citing biased sources and not seriously grappling with the results. This lame effort has been thoroughly smashed by Phil Magness.

Also seeking to reverse the bad press against lockdowns, the Science Media Centre, a project that appears mostly funded by The Wellcome Trust (Britain’s major funding source for epidemiological studies), published a rebuttal of this paper by top lockdown proponents.

Among the comments were those of Oxford’s Seth Flaxman, a major figure in this realm, who is not trained in biological science or medicine but computer science with a specialization in machine learning. And yet it has been his work that has most often been cited in defense of the idea that lockdowns achieved some good.

In opposition to the JHU study, Flaxman writes:

Smoking causes cancer, the earth is round, and ordering people to stay at home (the correct definition of lockdown) decreases disease transmission. None of this is controversial among scientists. A study purporting to prove the opposite is almost certain to be fundamentally flawed.

See how this rhetoric works? If you question his claim, you are not a scientist; you are denying the science!

These sentences are surely penned out of frustration. The first time in modern history or perhaps all of history when nearly all governments undertook “ordering people to stay home” (which amounts to a universal quarantine) to “decrease disease transmission” was in 2020.

To say that this is not controversial is ridiculous, since such policies had never before been attempted on this scale. Such a policy is not at all like an established causal claim (smoking increases cancer risk) nor a mere empirical observation (the earth is round). It is subject to verification.

There are plenty of reasons one might expect disease transmission to be higher in enclosed spaces with sustained close contact, such as homes, versus shops or even well-ventilated concert settings. As Henderson himself said, it could result in putting healthy non-infected people in close settings with infected people, worsening disease spread.

Indeed, by December of 2020, the governor’s office of New York found that “contact tracing data shows 70 percent of new COVID-19 cases originate from households and small gatherings.” It was also true with New York hospitalization: two thirds of them had contracted Covid at home.

“They’re not working; they’re not traveling,” Cuomo said of these recently hospitalized coronavirus patients. “We were thinking that maybe we were going to find a higher percent of essential employees who were getting sick because they were going to work — that these may be nurses, doctors, transit workers. That’s not the case. They were predominantly at home.”

That Flaxman would still claim otherwise after all experience shows that he is not observing reality but inventing dogma from his own intuition. Flaxman might say that he is sure that transmission might have been higher had people not been ordered to stay home, and there might be settings in which that is true, but he is in no position to elevate this claim to the status of “the earth is round.”

In addition, even under ideal conditions, reduction in disease transmission might only be short-term, kicking the can down the road. A glance at the wild infection increases of Winter 2021 suggests that. The orders might result in worse outcomes overall, due to all that such an order implies for people’s lives. Turning people’s homes into their own jails, in other words, has a downside for the quality of life. And surely that must factor into any social welfare analysis of pandemic policies.

Finally, it is not possible to order everyone to stay home, not even for a day or two. The groceries have to get to the store or be delivered to homes and apartments. People have to staff the hospitals. The electrical plants still need staff. Cops still have to be on the beat. There is literally no option available to “shut down” society in real life as versus in computer models.

Stay-at-home orders in real life become a class-protection scheme to keep high-end laptop professionals shielded from the virus while imposing the burden of exposure on people who have no option but to be out and about. In other words, the working classes are effectively forced to bear the burden of herd immunity, while the rich and financially secure stay safe and wait for the pandemic to pass.

For example, early in the pandemic, the messaging of the New York Times was to instruct its readers to stay home and get their groceries delivered. The paper knows its reader base well: it did not suggest any of them actually deliver groceries! As Sunetra Gupta says, “Lockdowns are a luxury of the affluent.”

And what, in the end, is the point of the stay-home orders? For a widespread virus such as this one, everyone will eventually meet the virus anyway. Only once the winter wave of 2021 finally swept the Zoom class did we start to see a shift in media messaging that 1) there is no shame in sickness, and 2) perhaps we need to start relaxing these restrictions.

The dogma that ordering people to stay home – for how long? – always reduces the spread comes not from evidence but from Flaxman-style modeling plus a remarkable capacity to ignore reality.

Lockdown policies are easily marketed to political players who might get a power rush from the exercise. But, in the end, Henderson’s prediction was correct: these interventions turned a manageable pandemic into a catastrophe.

It’s a sure bet, however, that lockdown proponents will be in denial at least for another decade.

Jeffrey A. Tucker is Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute and the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and ten books in 5 languages, most recently Liberty or Lockdown.

February 13, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

3,573 Fetal Deaths in VAERS Following COVID-19 Vaccines

By Brian Shilhavy | Health Impact News | February 13, 2022

The U.S. Government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database was updated this past Friday, February 11, 2022, and it is now reporting that there have been 1,103,893 cases of injuries and deaths following COVID-19 vaccine since December of 2020, when the FDA issued emergency use authorizations for the COVID-19 vaccines. (Source.)

By way of contrast, there were 918,856 cases of injuries and deaths following all FDA-approved vaccines for the previous 30+ years, from 1990 through November of 2020. (Source.)

So there have been more injuries and deaths recorded in VAERS during the past 14 months following COVID-19 vaccines, than there were for the previous 30+ years combined following all vaccines recorded in VAERS.

Fetal Deaths Increase by 1,867% Following COVID-19 Vaccines

This most recent update of VAERS shows that there have now been 3,573 fetal deaths following COVID-19 vaccines. (Source.)

To arrive at the number of fetal deaths recorded in VAERS I had to test several different searches on listed “symptoms” and then see if the search results documented fetal deaths, since there is no demographic for “fetal deaths.”

The following is the current list of “symptoms” in VAERS that reveals fetal deaths:

  • Aborted pregnancy
  • Abortion
  • Abortion complete
  • Abortion complicated
  • Abortion early
  • Abortion incomplete
  • Abortion induced
  • Abortion induced incomplete
  • Abortion late
  • Abortion missed
  • Abortion of ectopic pregnancy
  • Abortion spontaneous
  • Abortion spontaneous complete
  • Abortion spontaneous incomplete
  • Ectopic pregnancy
  • Ectopic pregnancy termination
  • Ectopic pregnancy with contraceptive device
  • Foetal cardiac arrest
  • Foetal death
  • Premature baby death
  • Premature delivery
  • Ruptured ectopic pregnancy
  • Stillbirth

This list may not be exhaustive. But if we use the exact same search using these symptoms, we can compare “apples to apples” in examining fetal deaths following COVID-19 vaccines as compared to fetal deaths following all non-COVID vaccines.

Using this search for all FDA-approved vaccines for the previous 30+ years before the COVID-19 vaccines were given emergency use authorization in December of 2020, we find 2,519 fetal deaths, the vast majority of which followed vaccines produced by Merck, which would include the Gardasil vaccines. (Source.)

Here are the yearly averages:

  • 82 fetal deaths per year following non-COVID vaccines
  • 3063 fetal deaths per year following COVID-19 vaccines

I arrived at these averages by taking the total number of fetal deaths following non-COVID vaccines and divided by 31, and for the fetal deaths following COVID-19 vaccines I divided by 14 to get the monthly average, and then multiplied by 12.

To get a more accurate percentage of how many more fetal deaths are following the COVID-19 vaccines than all other FDA approved vaccines, we have to also factor in the number of doses administered.

The U.S. Government’s Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) complies data on the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and a report that they published on 12/01/2021 shows that there were over 4 billion (4,092,757,049) doses of vaccines administered in the United States between 1/01/2006 through 12/31/2019, a year before the COVID-19 vaccines were given emergency use authorizations. (Source.)

Using that date range I repeated the exact same search for fetal deaths recorded in VAERS during that time, and VAERS reports 1,369 deaths from among those 4 billion+ doses administered between 1/01/2006 through 12/31/2019. (Source.)

The CDC reported this past week that there have been 543 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered as of February 3, 2022. (Source.)

So from 2006 through 2019, there was 1 fetal death recorded in VAERS for every 2,989,596 doses of vaccines administered.

From December, 2020 through February 4, 2022, there has been 1 fetal death recorded in VAERS for ever 151,973 doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered.

That’s a 1,867% increase of fetal deaths recorded in VAERS following COVID-19 vaccines.

I’ve run out of superlatives to use in the English language to describe this. And this is just using the U.S. Government’s own reported statistics, without even trying to figure out what the unreported factor is.

Here are two recent stories from young mothers who lost their unborn babies just after receiving a second COVID-19 vaccine. Perhaps their words and their experiences, which obviously represent, at least, many thousands of others, can better communicate just how truly horrible this is.

This is on our Bitchute channel, and also on our Telegram channel.

February 13, 2022 Posted by | War Crimes | , , | 1 Comment

Giant Ukrainian US lobbying campaign revealed

RT | February 13, 2022

Ukrainian lobbyists contacted US congressional offices, think tanks, and media figures over 10,000 times last year, according to an analysis of Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filings reported by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft on Friday.

The Quincy report pointed to the “extraordinary” scale of Ukraine’s lobbying campaign, noting that the lobbying efforts of Saudi Arabia – known as one of the largest foreign lobbies in Washington DC – pales in comparison.

According to the report, most of Kiev’s persuasive efforts focused on members of Congress, who were deluged with over 8,000 contacts – emails, phone calls, and meetings – in an effort to convince them of the need to block the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, among other issues.

The Ukrainian Federation of Employers of the Oil and Gas Industry (UFEOGI), the country’s largest energy trade group, would reportedly cite Ukraine’s PM, arguing that the pipeline was “no less an existential threat” to Ukraine’s “security and democracy” than “Russian troops on the border.” The pipeline, which is completed but still has to receive the green light from German regulators, would allow Russia to export gas directly to Europe without having to pay Kiev billions for the transfer of gas.

UFEOGI lobbyists apparently centered their efforts on Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who took just several days to channel the Ukrainian PM on social media. In his own message, Cruz likewise referred to the Russian pipeline as an “existential threat.”

The trade group also sought to reach out to senators who had previously backed legislation to thwart the completion of the pipeline, including several members of the Foreign Relations Committee with a history of anti-Russian votes. Cruz, Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire) were all contacted at least 100 times last year, with some of these contacts resulting in their staffers meeting directly with Ukrainian energy lobbyists, the report claims.

The bill proposed by Cruz would have imposed bans on doing business with US companies for those involved with the Nord Stream 2 project, in addition to travel restrictions and asset freezes. It failed to pass, however.

A separate legislative proposal, put forth by Senator Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey) and dubbed “the mother of all sanctions,” would punish senior Russian officials and banks in the event of an invasion of Ukraine. The Quincy report noted that one of Menendez’s former staffers, Brittany Beaulieu, now represents UFEOGI, as well as the ‘Civil Movement for a Just Ukraine’.

Apart from the US lawmakers, Ukrainian lobbyists also reportedly courted pro-NATO think tank the Atlantic Council, contacting it hundreds of times. The report noted that one of the richest men in Ukraine, Victor Pinchuk, is also one of the Atlantic Council’s international advisers, while his foundation is a major contributor to the think tank.

Ukrainian lobbyists also targeted the Heritage Foundation, which has been advocating selling more US weapons to Ukraine and ramping up US financial assistance to Kiev. The lobbyists reached out 180 times to high-ranking figures in the organization, including its VP, throughout 2021, according to the report.

The lobbyists also did not overlook the US media, contacting the Wall Street Journal’s newsroom at least 147 times last year, the report said, citing Quincy’s analysis of the interactions.

Russia has repeatedly denied plans to invade its neighbor, dismissing reports to the contrary as fake news. US media outlets, nevertheless, have attempted to predict the outbreak of hostilities down to the very day, citing anonymous government sources. Numerous US officials have argued that the invasion was looming, with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan saying on Friday that it could begin “any time.”

On Saturday, however, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called on the Americans to share the evidence they supposedly have of Russia’s intentions after having previously warned that reports of an imminent war risk destabilizing his country.

February 13, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Clinton campaign paid tech firm to link Trump to Russia – court filing

A legal motion makes bombshell allegations about IT firm’s clandestine spying activities on Trump White House

RT | February 13, 2022

Lawyers working for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign paid an IT firm to “infiltrate” servers at Trump Tower and the White House in order to establish a “narrative” that would link Donald Trump to Russia, an explosive new legal filing alleges.

The legal motion, filed in a District of Columbia court on Friday by a Justice Department (DOJ) prosecutor investigating the origins of the FBI’s ‘Russiagate’ probe, relates to potential conflicts of interest by former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann. Sussmann has previously pleaded not guilty to a one-count charge of lying to federal agents.

Two months before the 2016 election, Sussmann, a partner at Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented the Democrats and Clinton’s campaign, allegedly told the FBI he was not working on behalf of Clinton when he presented the agency with supposedly incriminating documents.

In the filing, Special Counsel John Durham alleges that Sussmann was working on behalf of the Clinton campaign and an unnamed “technology executive” at a US tech firm when he submitted “purported data” and “white papers” to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016. They apparently pointed to a “covert communications channel” between the Trump Organization and Russia-based Alfa Bank (identified as “Russian Bank-1”).

Highlighting Sussmann’s “billing records,” Durham alleges that he had “repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations.” This involved an unnamed lawyer working with the campaign, the tech executive (identified as “Tech Executive-1”), an investigative firm, several cyber-researchers, and employees at “multiple internet companies,” the motion states.

It alleges that the executive “exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data” and tasked researchers at an unnamed US university to “mine Internet data” so as to create “an inference” and “narrative” linking Trump to Russia. The executive claimed to be working “to please certain VIPs.”

While many US media outlets pointed to the Alfa Bank claims as proof of Trump’s “collusion” with the Kremlin, the FBI found that the email server in question was run by an advertising agency that sent out promotional emails for Trump’s hotels, among other things.

Among the internet data exploited was “domain name system (DNS) Internet traffic” from Trump Tower, Trump’s apartment building in New York City, and the White House, the filing states. It alleged that Tech Executive-1’s employer (identified as “Internet Company-1”) provided DNS resolution services to the White House – and accused the executive and his associates of exploiting this arrangement to mine data for “derogatory information” about Trump.

Then, in 2017, Sussmann apparently used this information to compile “an updated set of allegations” about Trump’s supposed Russian ties – noting “suspicious DNS lookups” and “Russian-made wireless phones” – to another US government agency, the motion states. Durham said he found “no support for these allegations” and added that some of the lookups occurred as early as 2014 during the Obama administration.

Demanding “reparations” be paid, Trump said in a statement on Saturday that the filing provided “indisputable evidence” that his campaign and presidency were “spied on by operatives paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign” to “develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia.”

“This is a scandal far greater in scope and magnitude than Watergate and those who were involved in and knew about this spying operation should be subject to criminal prosecution,” he added, noting that there was a time when the alleged crime “would have been punishable by death.”

There has been no official response from Clinton as yet.

Last year, Sussmann’s attorneys said their client had “committed no crime,” calling charges against him “baseless [and] unprecedented.” Meanwhile, a lawyer for the person who fed Sussmann the Alfa Bank claims said that his client did not know his law firm had a relationship with the Clinton campaign “and was simply doing the right thing.”

Sussmann represented the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during proceedings related to the alleged 2016 hack of its computers. Both Clinton and the DNC had blamed Russia, but could not back up their accusations.

The original Russia probe ballooned into a two-year investigation led by then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who failed to produce evidence of collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia.

February 13, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Europe considers regulating Spotify

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | February 13, 2022

National media regulators are hoping the upcoming speech laws will give them power to censor “misinformation” on Spotify.

Spotify has been attacked heavily in recent months, mostly for hosting the Joe Rogan Experience, which doesn’t always go along with the mainstream narrative.

“We should hold them accountable not as a publisher but just like any other online platform in the Digital Services Act,” Frédéric Bokobza, deputy director general of France’s media regulator, Arcom, told POLITICO.

The EU is finalizing the Digital Services Act (DSA), a law focused on content moderation on online platforms. The bill might also empower national media regulators to regulate a broader list of tech platforms, including Telegram and Spotify.

“As of now, we do not have regulatory tools in the French law which would enable us to oversee audio streaming companies, on top of the fact [Spotify] is not based on our territory,” said Roch-Olivier Maistre, president of France’s audiovisual regulator.

For long, Spotify escaped public scrutiny as it mostly hosted music. But in recent years it has become a popular podcast platform, with more than 400 million users globally and a new avenue for ideas that the establishment wants censored.

Despite the backlash, Spotify has refused to cut ties with Joe Rogan, whose show is the most popular podcast on the platform.

February 13, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

Covid and the death of medical ethics

By Guy Hatchard | TCW Defending Freedom | February 12, 2022

FROM our unique perspective in New Zealand there is probably no more twisted tale of the pandemic than the transformation of medical ethics. Due to our closed borders, NZ has so few Covid cases (18,000 at the time of writing) and almost no Covid deaths (53), that our pandemic medical history so far has been largely about isolation, vaccination and testing.

The political history of the pandemic has been about control of our borders, the creation of fear, and public assurances of the absolute safety of mRNA vaccines. In contrast, the official count of adverse effects of Pfizer Covid vaccination stands at 50,000 and the death toll at 130-plus. Both these figures are known to be huge underestimates. The excess all-cause non-Covid deaths during the vaccine rollout has been reliably measured at 2,000-plus. 

Despite this, booster shots are being heavily advertised and mandated. At no point has there been any admission of our lack of knowledge of the long-term effects of mRNA vaccination. Certainly there is increasing evidence of harm from the jab. For example, data from the US military points to massive rises in disease rates including a threefold rise in cancers. There has been a concerted effort to keep this story out of the mainstream media. The cover-up is almost a bigger story than the actual data.

Along with reports of vaccine injury, a steady stream of papers published recently are beginning to elucidate very worrying mechanisms underlying vaccine injury. Initial expectations were that after stimulating spike protein production sufficiently to induce an immune response, mRNA genetic sequences in the vaccines would dissipate rapidly, and therefore safely. A study published in the journal Cell on January 24 shows that the mRNA sequences can persist in lymph node germinal centres for weeks causing greater spike havoc than Covid infection itself.

The official reports of vaccine adverse effects in NZ are running at 30 times the rate of reported injuries from previous flu vaccines. The fact that this has not rung alarm bells is incomprehensible. The fact that the government has persisted with its saturation advertising announcing the safety and necessity of Covid vaccination is doubly concerning. It is apparent from the failure to investigate alarming data that the practice of medical ethics has transformed to become almost unrecognisable.

A common framework used when analysing medical ethics is the ‘four principles’ approach postulated by Tom Beauchamp and James Childress in their textbook Principles of Biomedical Ethics. It recognises four basic moral principles, which are to be judged and weighed against each other, with attention given to the scope of their application. The four principles are:

Autonomy – the patient has the right to refuse or choose his or her treatment. This is rooted in society’s respect for individuals’ ability to make informed decisions about personal matters with freedom.

Beneficence – a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient and family. In other words, healing is the aim of medicine.

Non-maleficence – not to be the cause of harm. Many consider this should be the primary consideration, that it is more important not to harm your patient than to do him good, which is part of the Hippocratic oath that doctors take.

Justice – concerns the fair distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision as to who gets what treatment.

In practice, however, many treatments carry some risk of harm. In some circumstances, for example in desperate situations where the outcome without treatment will be grave, risky treatments which stand a high chance of harming the patient could be justified. This is because the risk of not treating is also very likely to do harm. So the principle of non-maleficence (non-harm) is not absolute, and balances against the principle of beneficence (doing good). This has particularly affected debates around the promotion to doctors by drug companies of strong narcotics such as Oxycodone which is highly addictive and whose overuse commonly leads to respiratory failure and death.

It can readily be appreciated that the debate around how to apply ethics to medical practice has some grey areas and deficiencies. Medical misadventure is now the third-leading cause of death in the USA. Has this led to an acceptance of risk which should in fact be avoided? In large part the rules applied to drug approval are very strict. Double blind trials are required. Lengthy periods of assessment are mandated. Deaths following treatment are investigated and usually trials are suspended when these occur. Generally for vaccinations, assessment takes around ten years and two deaths per million recipients would be the maximum allowed in a finally approved product.

In contrast, the pre-approval trial periods for Covid-19 vaccines have been of the order of six months. The critical assessments of secondary effects have not been undertaken. These are aimed to check that general health outcomes for trial participants such as cardiac conditions and cancers do not exceed population norms. Note the US military data here. Clearly serious injury and deaths associated with Covid-19 vaccinations have exceeded the traditional limits by a massive margin. Moreover outcomes reported cover a wide range of conditions. Have professional medical bodies raised the alarm? No. Why?

Initially there were reports that Covid-19 was a very serious illness with mortality rates as high as 5 per cent. Figures as high as 180,000 deaths in NZ were predicted.

This alarmist assessment rapidly dissipated. Published studies put mortality rates well under 1 per cent and there was a realisation that serious Covid outcomes and deaths primarily occurred among those who were already seriously ill or physically weak due to other causes including advanced age. During the early months of 2021, it was also apparent that mRNA vaccines waned in effectiveness rapidly and did little to stop transmission. The only principles of medical ethics that seemed still to be appropriate were those of justice and beneficence. Reports suggested that Covid vaccination reduced the severity of illness; might it not be beneficial to the individual and save our over-stretched health service from becoming overwhelmed by unvaccinated Covid patients, thereby helping  patients requiring treatment for other conditions? Despite doubts about the outcome data and mounting evidence of vaccination harm, the answer given to this by the NZ government was a big YES. It decided to mandate vaccination to the extent that the unjabbed would lose their right to employment. It thereby overruled the first principle of medical ethics, autonomy orpatient choice, a degree of coercion which ensured vaccination rates in NZ rose above 90 per cent among those eligible.

The Health Forum NZ is a Facebook, Telegram and MeWe site with 50,000-plus members which has served as a meeting and information place for the vaccine-injured. NZ has a population of 5million so HFNZ members comprise 1 per cent of the population. HFNZ has received reports of 600-plus deaths proximate to vaccination. More than 300 of these have been investigated and confirmed by the voluntary group NZ Doctors Speaking Out on Science.

The most common among the thousands of reports of vaccine injury are chest pain, arrhythmia, shortness of breath and persistent extreme fatigue and debility. Sometimes these develop as cardiac events, clotting, stroke and death. There are many experiences of patients being assured that they were over-anxious and being sent home with an aspirin, only to suffer immediate complications necessitating hospital admission. Sometimes sufferers find that the doctor is uninterested and dismissive when he hears that the injury followed vaccination.

Our government decided early on not to take the reporting of adverse effects following vaccination seriously. It denied repeated requests to make reporting adverse events mandatory with the result that there is no way of knowing the extent of vaccine injury. The health authorities already knew that the voluntary had a history of catching only 5 per cent of adverse events. Their decision flouted the most important principle of medical ethics – do no harm. It also enabled the government and the whole medical establishment to avoid any public discussion of adverse events. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern arranged for the hurried deletion of over 30,000 reports of adverse events from her Facebook account.

Why did our authorities do this? The government opted for a stand-alone vaccination strategy because it believed assurances of safety and efficacy from Pfizer. Almost immediately, and before any decision on mandates, we found out vaccine effectiveness waned rapidly and did little to reduce transmission, directly contradicting Pfizer trial results. The government and the Ministry of Health switched arguments – ‘millions of people have received the vaccine worldwide so it must be safe and effective’, a vacuous argument from a scientific point of view. Almost a hundred thousand people were prescribed thalidomide before it was realised that it was unsafe.

The medical ethics criteria of public good and patient well-being are not usually weighed in the absence of considerations of maleficence and autonomy. Thus the stance of the government, to sweep vaccine injury under the carpet, departed radically from previous ethical practice. This kind of departure has previously been entertained only in times of war when the threat to the nation is judged to be sufficient to mandate military service call-up and tolerate the inevitable heavy casualties of conflict. This condition was of course not met in any way by the Covid pandemic.

The mounting numbers of individuals reporting vaccine injuries should have rung alarm bells to a point that detailed investigation of their extent became a priority. Instead and inexplicably, hiding their occurrence rose to the top of the government’s agenda. Jacinda Ardern lashed out at a journalist asking questions about the death of a 17-year-old girl who had a stroke immediately following vaccination, labelling the journalist as irresponsible and denying any relationship with vaccination before there had been any time to assess causation. A few medical professionals were disciplined for raising similar questions. This was enough to discourage any public consideration of the ethics involved.

The government decided further to reverse ethical practice. Dr Ashley Bloomfield, Director General of Health, has personal responsibility for granting vaccine exemptions to those injured by the first shot. In almost all cases, he refuses exemptions including among those hospitalised and still ill, even when there is supporting documentation from specialists.

Now that extensive research has concluded that the outcomes for Omicron patients are similar for both the vaccinated and unvaccinated, there is no longer a valid scientific argument for justice and beneficence.  All ethical arguments for mandates are moot, but why is there still no move to protect individuals from the adverse effects of vaccination?

As mounting evidence has been ignored, government decisions verge towards the criminal. There are floundering attempts by the media to label mandate protesters as variously Right-wing extremists and uneducated Luddites. The arguments in support of mandated vaccination are still being presented to the public through strident political rhetoric unsupported by science publications. The government must realise that there are serious scientific and ethical failings involved. It must mount an honest attempt to change the debate from politics to science, and adjust public policy accordingly. At this stage, anything less is culpable.

February 13, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

University’s top donor withdraws support over ‘ridiculous’ Covid rules

RT | February 11, 2022

The UK’s Durham University has lost its biggest individual donor, multimillionaire Mark Hillery, who pulled his financial support over Covid-19 rules he slammed as “ridiculous.”

A former hedge fund manager and university alumnus, Hillery donated almost £7m to the university’s Collingwood College between 2015 and 2021. He has funded a number of facilities, including a new arts center that bears his name, according to the student newspaper Palatinate, which was the first to reveal Hillery’s decision to withdraw his support.

The alumnus has actively supported the university for more than 20 years, hosting various events, and even sometimes paying for the students’ drinks in a college bar. He expressed deep regret over what he called “a very depressing state of affairs.”

In an interview with Palatinate he revealed that, prior to his decision to “step back,” he several times contacted the university to express his disagreement over the anti-Covid measures. However, this year the university chose to adopt policies which he said were even stricter than the government’s, including a temporary return to online teaching and face-mask mandates.

“Urgency that should have been displayed to fully normalize [the university] to the same status as the rest of society has not been there,” Hillery said.

He complained that the same “pedantic and ineffective policies that place the priorities of the paying students at the bottom of the pile are simply continued and refined,” adding that he would not visit Durham again “while there is a single Covid-related rule imposed on the students.”

Hillery, who is worth a reported £165 million and ranks 743rd on the Sunday Times Rich List 2020, did not rule out that in the future he might resume his support, underlining, however, that “it’s all far too little too late.”

The university expressed gratitude for Hillery’s “support in many initiatives” but said that the health and safety of its students and staff have always been a priority.

“We have been guided at all times by the local trajectory of the pandemic which varied at different times across the UK,” a spokesperson added.

February 13, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

CHD Informs the FDA that the Facts Certainly Fail to Support Vaccinations in the 6 month-60 month age group

By Meryl Nass, MD

February 9, 2022


Dear Dr. Janet Woodcock:

We write to you on behalf of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a non-profit organization devoted to the health of people and the planet. We have actively followed your work to evaluate, authorize and approve vaccines for the American public, and particularly children.

We are aware that you are likely to grant Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of Pfizer’s BioNTech SARS-CoV-2 vaccine for children aged six months up to five years old following your upcoming meeting on February 15, 2022. We are writing to put you on notice that should you recommend this pediatric EUA vaccine to children under five years old, CHD is poised to take legal action against you. CHD will seek to hold you accountable for recklessly endangering this population with a product that has little, no, or even negative net efficacy but which may put them, without warning, at risk of many adverse health consequences, including heart damage, stroke and other thrombotic events and reproductive harms.

We briefly outline why such a recommendation would be reckless for nearly 20 million children in the United States, and millions more around the world.

  1. There is no COVID emergency for children under five years old. Children have a 99.995% recovery rate and a body of medical literature indicates that almost zero healthy children under five years old have died from COVID.

  • A large study conducted in Germany showed zero deaths for children under 5 and a case fatality rate of three out of a million in children without comorbidities.

  • A Johns Hopkins study monitoring 48,000 children diagnosed with COVID showed a zero mortality rate in children under 18 without comorbidities.,

  • A study in Nature demonstrated that children under 18 with no comorbidities have virtually no risk of death.

  • Data from England and Wales, published by the UK Office of National Statistics on January 17, 2022 revealed that throughout 2020 and 2021, only one (1) child under the age of 5, without comorbidities, had died from COVID in the two countries, whose total population is 60 million.

  • Another study in Nature from April, suggests children’s bodies clear the virus more easily than adults.

  • This study published in December in Nature demonstrated how children efficiently mount effective, robust and sustained immune responses.

  1. Over one third of all children are estimated to have natural immunity to COVID, according to CDC’s own data. There is no ethical justification for superfluous vaccination that will put children at elevated risk of vaccine harm.

  2. The risks demonstrably outweigh the benefits of COVID vaccination in young children. A study out of Hong Kong, showed one out of every 2,700 12-17 year old boys being diagnosed with myocarditis following the 2nd dose of Comirnaty vaccine, or 37 per 100,000 vaccinated. A study from Kaiser found the same rate of myocarditis in 12-17 year old American boys, 1/2700.

  3. While the CDC is saying that myocarditis is a mild disease, cardiologists know otherwise. CDC’s own preliminary data, reported at the February 4 ACIP meeting, revealed that nearly half of the young people diagnosed with myocarditis still had symptoms 3 months later, and 39% had their activity restricted by their physician. We know this serious adverse event occurs frequently in teenagers. But no one knows how often it occurs in younger children. This is of major concern for babies and younger children.

5.   The clinical trials for children 2 through 4 years old failed., You’re proposing to use a product and schedule that failed in its clinical trials, and you may potentially add a third dose later in the spring. This is an unprecedented proposal not backed by science. It does not meet the risk-benefit standard of 21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 “the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat such disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product.”

6.   Some children likely will die and others will be permanently injured from these vaccines based on reporting to the current VAERS database. The latest data shows a total of 1,088,560 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 23,149 deaths and 183,311 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 28, 2022.

7.   The pediatric clinical trials for the COVID vaccines were too small to detect safety signals–especially for a population in the tens of millions.

8.   There are a) no long-term safety data for COVID vaccination of young children, and b) the proposal is to vaccinate children under the Emergency Use Authorization. Both a) and b) establish that vaccinating small children for COVID will be an experiment, not a standard medical procedure.

9.   Unethical coercive pressure will be applied to children and their parents, as has occurred with older children and adults. To grant authorization is to abet this unethical coercion that violates the Nuremberg Code’s first principle.

10. There is no available care for children injured by COVID shots. There is no way to remove the spike protein and other toxic byproducts of vaccination, which may be produced for a considerable period of time following inoculation of messenger RNA. The science and medicine have not yet developed, and most families will be unable to cover the costs of potential catastrophic injuries.

11. First, do no harm. You are a physician who owes a duty to patients and medical ethics. If you recommend these shots to this age group, given all you know, will you be upholding your oath? If not, is it possible that your acts could later be seen as reason to remove your medical licenses?

12. The liability-free nature of your deliberations may not stand the test of time. In the fullness of time, your decisions may not have the liability protection that they currently enjoy. Under the PREP Act of 2005, all actors advancing an EUA agenda for medical countermeasures enjoy liability protection, absent willful misconduct., Nonetheless, if at a later point these shots are deemed non-therapeutic gene products that you knowingly and recklessly recommended, and which were then distributed to children as a direct result of your decision, it is possible that liability could later attach.

13. There are safer drugs that could be used prophylactically and therapeutically for COVID in children. There is extensive and compelling medical evidence for this assertion; and the choice to eschew use of these drugs in favor of a demonstrably dangerous vaccine is arbitrary and capricious.

14. The vaccines do not prevent transmission. They do not prevent infection. There is no statistically valid evidence that they prevent severe disease or deaths in children. Which begs the question: what are you actually trying to accomplish by vaccinating small children? What is your goal?

15. On August 23, 2021, FDA’s letter to BioNTech explained that neither the VAERS nor the VSD surveillance systems were adequate for FDA to determine the risk of myocarditis resulting from the Pfizer vaccine. Therefore, Pfizer and BioNTech were instructed by FDA to carry out a series of studies of myocarditis to ascertain the risk in different groups, including children. These studies were scheduled to produce final reports to FDA over the next five years.  If  the FDA is willing to wait until 2027 to learn the actual risks of myocarditis from the vaccine for children, shouldn’t it be required to wait until 2027 before inoculating millions of small children with a vaccine anticipated to provide them no benefit and possibly substantial risks?

16. An important Cell article in press, written by scientists from Stanford, has shown that, based on lymph node sampling after mRNA vaccination, spike protein and its mRNA remain present in the germinal centers of draining lymph nodes for up to 60 days, which is when sampling ceased. This was not supposed to happen.  The demonstration of vastly prolonged spike protein production has revealed that the dose of spike protein produced in vivo by mRNA vaccines is unpredictable.  FDA, however, requires uniformity of dosing. This fact alone should disqualify all authorizations and approvals of mRNA COVID vaccines.

We ask that you carefully consider all the information above before making any recommendation for Pfizer’s vaccine in the 6 months to under 5 year age group at your meeting on February 15, 2022.



Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.            Meryl Nass, M.D.

Unfortunately, the footnotes are missing from this version. They can be found at:

February 13, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Canadian Truckers and Supporters Staying the Course

By Stephen Lendman | February 13, 2022

Thousands of Canadian truckers and supporters continue protesting against draconian Trudeau regime health and freedom-destroying mandates.

Ongoing since January 29 in Ottawa, they continued overnight Saturday for the 6th day along the Ambassador Bridge linking Windsor, Ontario to Detroit — defying a court order to disperse and state of emergency threats by Ontario premier Doug Ford.

Things are fluid and quick-changing.

After things eased somewhat along the Ambassador Bridge, other protesters arrived on the Canadian side to block free passage.

According to news reports, a face-off with police sent to clear the bridge included no physical confrontations as of Saturday evening.

Disruptions also affect border crossings from Coutts, Alberta to Montana and Surrey, British Columbia to Washington state.

Late Saturday, a Trudeau regime statement said “border crossings cannot, and will not, remain closed, and that all options are on the table.”

Vehicles continue to block the Ambassador Bridge, Toronto Star reporter Jacob Lorinc tweeting:

“Police moving up slowly, but very slowly. Lots of protesters here.”

“(V)ehicles are still blocking lanes that lead to the bridge. (It’s) closed.”

“Not clear when it will reopen.”

“No arrests made as far as I can tell.”

Al Jazeera reported that “(a) crowd exceeding 10,000 people made their way between the trucks towards (Ottawa’s) parliament building.”

On Saturday, “many vehicles” along the road from Montreal to Ottawa displayed “Freedom” signs.

CTV News said “(p)rotests continue across Canada.”

At the Ambassador Bridge, police and protesters remain in “standoff… with more protesters arriving throughout the” day on Saturday.

In Surrey, British Columbia, “multiple commercial trucks… broke through an RCMP barricade on the Pacific Highway while following protesters marching to the border Saturday afternoon.”

The main route to Blaine, Washington remained closed.

No violence, injuries or arrests were reported.

Resolution of what’s going on in Canada nationwide requires the Trudeau regime to rescind flu/covid mandates across the board.

Protests continue because he refuses to end what shouldn’t have been imposed in the first place.

One protester along the Ambassador Bridge expressed the sentiment of all others across Canada, saying:

“We’re sick and tired of mandates.”

Ending them is the only acceptable option.

In New Brunswick, an anti-mandates video by Canadian army major Stephen Chledowski went viral online, saying the following:

“I am calling on my military and cops comrades to now stand up and safeguard your loved ones against this government-forced medical tyranny.”

“For 2 years our elected government officials have been using the strategies of fear, coercion and financial, intimidation and physical altercation against us to attain compliance for specific repeated medical procedures.”

The Trudeau regime and provincial officials are using “bullying tactics of fear, intimidation, coercion and financial and physical violence.”

Like the US Constitution’s First Amendment affirmation of free expression, Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedom mandates it for all the nation’s people.

According to the rule of law in both countries, it cannot legally be denied to anyone.

So-called free expression limits on what Canadian military personnel may say publicly breach the law of the land.

Given how Canada operates extrajudicially on all things flu/covid related, Chledowski could face stiff disciplinary action for the “crime” of truth-telling about health and freedom-destroying mandates.

In December 2020, in full military attire, Officer Cadet Ladislas Kenderesi spoke out publicly against what he called “killer” jabs.

In response, he was charged with what CTV News called “a mutiny-related offense.”

As in the US and throughout the West, democracy in Canada is pure fantasy. It’s for the privileged few alone at the expense of most others.

The rule of law is what ruling regimes say it is, the real thing be damned when interfering with their draconian policies.

Health and freedom-destroying mandates revealed reality about how Canada is ill-governed.

The only option for protesters is staying the course for restoration of what Trudeau regime hardliners abolished in deference to wealth, power and privilege by harming the vast majority of Canadians — on the phony pretext of protecting them.

February 13, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Solidarity and Activism | , , , | Leave a comment

Telling the truth in the age of sponsored science why so many scientific studies refute their own conclusions

el gato malo – bad cattitude – february 13, 2022

in the age of government sponsored science driven by grants, sinecure, and sponsorship, scientists face a difficult set of choices.

they must, if they wish to continue receiving the largess of the gold-givers toe the party line of state or commercially sponsored science. he who has paid the piper demands to call the tune and producing work that does not suit “the narrative” is career suicide. your funding will dry up. so may your position, your prospects for advancement, and even your tenure. you will not be asked to join committees, interviewed for articles, citied, or supported. you may be outright attacked. i discuss this in more depth HERE.

but scientists also face another constraint: they need to be accurate. they need to run good experiments, collect good data, and relay it faithfully. if they do not, they will get called out and revealed as incompetents or frauds. this too will end one’s career as it means that not only are you doing no useful work (apart from to propogandists) but will reveal that you have sold out integrity for lucre and that is the end of peers taking you seriously. you play for team lysenko now.

the need to thread this needle and appease and please both demands has led to an odd practice:

many times, the claims made in the abstract or in the conclusions are not supported by the actual data.

i know this sounds a little bizarre, but as someone who reads perhaps 1000 such papers a year, allow me to assure you, it is stunningly common in any politically loaded sphere. (and you would be amazed how many are politically loaded. it need not be government pushing it. watching geneticists tie their conclusions in knots to claim that you can breed horses for speed and endurance or dogs for intelligence but that of course there is no such thing as eugenics in humans because that would be unspeakable despite your having just proved that there is in fact, eugenics in humans is really quite something. they go to astounding lengths in the introductions of their books to disavow what they are about to prove.)

this odd compromise sort of works, but mostly, it doesn’t.

it gives those who fund studies and the journals who curate them for ideological purity their bone. the abstract says “X means Y.” this is what they want for the press releases and for waving around.

it also puts the actual data out into the world. this is what researchers, both those who did the work and those who will read it in detail, actually need. they can see the facts and will not be gulled in by the claims in the conclusion as they are adept at drawing their own conclusions.

this leads to the weird outcome of the public and the politicians frequently having one idea about what a study says and the experts in the field having more or less the opposite take.

the “experts” all know what the data means and why they are not allowed to say it. it works a bit like the foils used by renaissance dialogue writers to ape at being fools while presenting the actual case being made while the “authorities” presented the “narrative” and were made fools of by those able to read between the lines.

in the age of the internet, this sets up a bizarre and deeply frustrating conflict: those who can and do really read studies are constantly having to pick them apart and explain to the “google and spam” crowd who just selectively confirm their biases and skim the lead paragraph of a study why the study they just cited does not, in fact, say what they are claiming it does.

and, of course, trying to convince someone that the authors deliberately misstated the facts in the summary is like trying to teach a new trick to the very oldest of dogs. they are just not having it.

this has created a rancorous and dangerously stupid level of debate and an impossible burden for any one individual to carry. it takes 10 seconds to search, skim, and spam with a study you never read and start yelling “peer review!” over and over as if that means something.

it can take hours to pick the study apart and see if it really does support the conclusions stated in the summary and then hours more to convince someone who has not even read it (and probably does not know how). that’s unwinnable. it’s like sisyphus getting and additional rock to push back up the hill every time he reaches the top. pretty soon it’s 20 boulders and nothing is going anywhere.

fortunately, the internet age has produced a large group of folks interested in picking these studies apart and publishing their takes. and we form communities and help one another. so no one has to do ALL the work when the CDC publishes yet more self refuting “wave around” data.

this is, in fact, what real peer review is. it’s supposed to be hostile and to pick holes.

the upshot here is that you should be very careful taking studies you have not actually read at face value.

you need to read them. thoroughly. waving them around as if you did when you have not is a recipe for being wrong.

let’s take a simple and straightforward recent example:

this article is being used to push boosters. this is because the authors said this:

i have not spoken to them. perhaps they believe this, perhaps they do not but felt they had to say it or be pariahs. i have no special insight there. but i can read data.

so let’s see what the data says.

this was a big study, but also a retrospective study with post facto matching. the matching was by age, sex, and municipality. it is tainted by the ever present “we counted no one as vaccinated until 14 days post dose 2” issue which will inevitably deeply favor vaccine efficacy through a mathematical rig job (especially in the short run) and can even produce it from zero VE and looks to have had large effects in canadian data.

so we have some ingrained bayesian issues with our cohorts that may inject serious bias toward making vaccines look effective.

the data itself was rendered quite challenging to read. (heavy text, few graphics)

it was also truncated in a somewhat misleading fashion.

if you read it closely, you’ll see that even the longest follow ups on infection data were lumped after 210 days, several were 180 (before it really gets bad) others were 120.

this is just typical bayesian datacrime and presentation bias as we’ve seen so many times before. and it does not really speak to the interesting issue of “are the vaccines preventing severity?”

this is, in fact, omitted from the study. but they did collect the data, they just made it REALLY difficult to find. you need to go HERE to the supplemental materials page. you then need to download the actual PDF as the data is not on the webpage. then you need to go to the very last page of that supplement.

those who do so (and i’m guessing we’re down to a very few folks by then) will be rewarded with this graph:

and this one has profound and powerful implications.

  1. it shows that efficacy against severe outcomes like hospitalization and death also wanes very rapidly
  2. it shows that this efficacy keeps waning over time
  3. it shows that it could easily be strongly negative based on the huge downside bias to the error range (gray shaded area)
  4. and it shows that this data is of very low quality in terms of error magnitude.

at 9 months, midline expectation is ~15% reduction. (i’m eyeballing) but look at the confidence interval: it runs from (ballpark) +63% to -90%. that is not a useful range upon which to base anything. it implies that there is a very strong chance that vaccination is associated with greatly increased risk of severe outcomes for a great many people.

this pattern implies that boosters are likely, at best, a treadmill that will need constant refreshing, likely 3X a year or so, if you want to sustain efficacy. vaccine fade after 4 months degrades rapidly. (and frankly, the first 4 could well be an illusory halo generated by the dose 2 +14 vaccinated definition as linked above)

given the adverse events profile and the lack of severity of omicron this seems a truly odious proposition that looks likely to fail for most people on any sort or risk/benefit analysis. it is telling that the researchers here did not even attempt to take risk reward into account before claiming:

“The results strengthen the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third vaccine dose as a booster.”

what is also telling is the other part of the data required to make this claim:

do boosters work? do they refresh clinical immunity and mitigate severity? could they ever have done so and is this data even relevant with the emergence of omicron that seems to be at least an escape variant and far more likely a full blown hoskins effect/OAS variant that is enhanced, not mitigated by the vaccines.

because the evidence there looks quite persuasive that they do not.

note that all this data is from before oct 4th 2021, so it has no omicron impact whatsoever in it. claiming it bolsters the case for boosters without presenting evidence of booster efficacy on this new variant makes their claim feel like a rote bolt on, placed there to mollify and placate patrons and authorities.

there is absolutely no data here to validate that point.

the study does not even speak to the data that would be needed to make such a claim.

“efficacy wanes, so boost” is not a valid argument unless we know that boosters work, yet any evidence that boosters actually do anything to help is absent and all past data shows such rapid fade on efficacy vs severity as to make boosters a poor appearing proposition.

there is no data whatsoever on the new variant.

and boosters are sure not seeming to help in the UK. omi is driving rates of infection in the boosted at roughly double the rate of the unvaxxed.

the swedish study uses possibly irrelevant data and not only fails to prove out the ostensible interpretation, but winds up far more consistent with the conclusion that boosters are a waste of time and will provide ephemeral, at best, protection.

having seen this, go back and read the “interpretation” again.

now do you see my point about “the abstract says one thing while the data says another?”

i mean, they literally buried the lede at the very end of a hard to find supplement. it’s like putting the actual object of a video game inside of an easter egg.

most vexing, this easter egg also shows that vaccines may be making immunity to severe covid outcomes significantly worse.

call me mister suspicious, but i have a hunch that’s WHY they put it there.

let’s explore that a bit further:

what would be REALLY interesting is to see how this population distribution looks.

if it barbells then we likely have a serious confound going on. we really have no idea what the prior incidence of covid was in those who got vaccinated. one could expect it to be quite meaningful.

if vaccines look like they are working well in some and are strongly negative in others with not much in the middle (this is suggested but not proven by the skew in the confidence interval) then i would posit that the most likely explanation is that what looks like VE is actually naturally acquired immunity.

if you had covid then got vaxxed, vaccines look like they work, especially as the high risk groups got vaxxed more and these same groups likely had higher risk of prior infection. this gets magnified by the 2 week worry window of TLR suppression post vaccination that results in well documented decreases in immune function and a doubling of the rate of covid contraction in that period vs unvaxxed.

but if you got vaxxed without having had covid, it could be acting as an immunosuppressant or driving hoskins effect/OAS antigenic fixation that makes you more vulnerable.

this, along with all cause deaths in vaxxed vs unvaxxed measured from the moment you got your first jab is some data i’d really like to see.

it’s continuing non-availability certainly frustrating and likely telling. this data absolutely exists.

why we are not getting to see it is fast becoming a question too big to ignore.

February 13, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Over half the deaths seen by this funeral director were likely caused by the COVID vaccines

By Steve Kirsch | February 7, 2022

He is not alone in seeing this. All his other embalmer friends see it too. All of them. The only possible explanation: the COVID vaccines are killing massive numbers of previously healthy people.

Fifteen embalmers are all seeing odd fatal clotting in people that first started in 2021. As many as 65% of cases are affected. Just like the DMED data, this evidence is being totally ignored by the mainstream press and medical community as well as the CDC and other HHS agencies. The only explanation that fits all the facts is that the vaccines are killing Americans in massive numbers and should be immediately halted.

Meet Richard Hirschman, an embalmer in Alabama with over 20 years experience

Embalmer reveals 93% of cases have deadly clots

Richard Hirschman is a funeral director who spotted really strange clots in dead people after the vaccines rolled out. He was interviewed by Jane Ruby on the Stew Peters Show. At nearly 800,000 views on Rumble alone, his interview is one of the most popular episodes in Stew Peters Show history.

I was originally introduced to Richard via one of my contacts. Richard has been embalming people for more than 20 years. He lives in Alabama.

Here’s my 53 minute interview where we get into the profound implications of what Richard found: that the vaccines are likely killing around 65% of the cases he is seeing today. There is simply no other possible explanation that fits the evidence.

If you thought the COVID shots were safe and effective before the video, and you still have a working brain, I’m pretty sure this video will change your thinking because there is only one possible conclusion: the COVID vaccines are killing massive numbers of people and nobody is investigating.

Here are some of the most important things I learned from Richard:

  1. He started noticing the strange clots around May or June 2021. He’d never seen anything like it before in his life. However, he admits they could have started much earlier and he just never noticed them before because he was very busy.
  2. He is not aware of any cases where the strange clots were seen in unvaccinated cases(except for one unvaccinated person who received a transfusion)
  3. He started formally tracking the number of patients with the strange clots in late 2021.
  4. He says currently over 50% of the bodies he embalms have the strange clots which he uniquely associates with the vaccines/boosters. This is the bombshell. The CDC says deaths from the vaccine are 0% and this embalmer, who has no conflicts of interest, says it is now over 50% of the cases he sees. They can’t both be telling the truth. One of them is lying.
  5. In Jan 2022, 37 out of 57 (65% of all cases) had these suspicious clots. That’s huge.
  6. His embalming volume varies by day. Sometimes it is one a day, other days it can be up to 6 or 7. He estimates he does an average of 2 per day, which is over 600 bodies a year. So while these aren’t huge numbers, the numbers are large enough that it is unlikely that the effect they are seeing is just due to small numbers.
  7. He contracts out his services to a variety of funeral homes. In 2020, he’d see a lot of COVID deaths because other embalmers didn’t want to touch those cases. Richard is COVID recovered so he had no problem handling those cases. Now, however, that fear has greatly subsided so now he is seeing more of a representative sample (i.e., unbiased) of people who die. So his “over 50% of deaths” figure is only slightly exaggerated from an embalmer seeing an “unfiltered” set of people.
  8. Younger people tend to be cremated, so he won’t see those cases.
  9. His peers (he’s discussed with 15 of them) see the same thing he does but won’t speak out publicly. I see this in other areas such as school officials being afraid to reveal high rates of myocarditis in their schools. For example, Nikki Daniels, Head of School at Monte Vista Christian School, isn’t speaking out about the four myocarditis cases at their small private school (which translates into a rate of myocarditis that I’d estimate is more than 1 in 100).
  10. The mainstream media, mainstream medical community, and HHS agencies are all ignoring Hirschman and others like John Looney. Only alt-media has reached out to him to write an article.
  11. PolitiFact reached out to try to discredit him but ended up not writing an article presumably because they failed to find anything to attack him on.
  12. There is no other explanation for this that we can figure out. It pretty much has to be a novel injectable product, first used in 2021 that results in blood clots and is injected into well over 50% of the population. There is only one drug that fits that bill: the COVID vaccines.
  13. None of his embalmer friends who have seen the data are planning on getting any more COVID vaccine shots.
  14. Richard is not alone. See this compilation: People who would know.
  15. Fewer than 1% of people who get the shots will die. As Dr. Mike Yeadon points out in the comments below, whether you die or not is likely a combination of how well you “take up” and “replicate” the mRNA, how dangerous the batch is, and other factors.

Could it be caused by 5G?

A few people speculated it was caused by the 5G deployment in Alabama. No, that’s not it at all. Nothing has changed in the area around Hirschman. We checked.

Could these clots be caused by COVID?

The Politifact fact checker, Naseem Ferdowsi, has no medical experience at all. She sent a message on Feb 4, 2022 that she was told by an embalmer in Phoenix Arizona that “dark clots have been found in COVID victims long before vaccinations were available.”

There are several problems with hypothesis:

  1. The clots are white fibrous material (clearly the fact checker never actually viewed the video she was fact checking)
  2. The number of COVID deaths in Houston County where Richard works are miniscule. For example, the number of COVID deaths was 9 in January, yet Richard had 37 with these clots.
  3. The percentages do not make sense. Only a tiny fraction of all deaths in January are from COVID. If 65% of the deaths in Houston County in January 2022 were from COVID, that would be front page news.
  4. If these clots were caused by COVID, it’s highly likely someone would have spotted it before 2021 and done a similar video.
  5. Omicron has taken over as the dominant COVID variant in January across the country. Omicron doesn’t kill people. People die with Omicron, not from Omicron. Therefore, if it was COVID-related, the clots would be gone, not at an all-time high.

However, we all know what will happen, don’t we? I think we’ll soon see a PolitiFact article that these clots are caused by COVID.

Another clue that vaccinated people are dying at a higher rate than the unvaccinated

One commenter said “only 61% have received at least one of the jabs and 49% two jabs in AL.”

The implication is that you can’t have 65% of the deaths be from the jabs.

But that’s not true at all.

If 61% were vaccinated over all age groups, and the vaccine were completely safe, we’d expect that 61% of the people who died would be vaccinated.

Richard’s observation that 65% of the people who died had these clots simply means that the vaccine appears to be causing death at a higher rate than would be expected than if the vaccine was truly safe and effective.

The doubly jabbed are more likely to die so the bump from 49% expected to 65% suggests the jabs are killing people.

Estimating total number of people killed by the COVID vaccines from this data

Hirschman’s data is explosive because it establishes a relative proportion of people affected which we can then use to establish an absolute rate of death.

Is this definitive? No. It’s just another “sanity check” datapoint.

So let’s say the actual rate of vaccine-caused deaths is 40% of all deaths which is less than the 65% rate that Hirschman is seeing.

The CDC says around 65,000 people die a week. So that would be 26,000 people a week killed by the vaccine. He started noticing these deaths in May (they could have started sooner), so let’s just say it’s only been in the last 6 months to be conservative.

26 weeks *26,000 deaths/week=676,000 vaccine-related deaths.

That’s a lot of deaths. So you see why this observation is explosive.

Even if he’s off by 1000X, this vaccine is still too unsafe to be used in humans

But suppose Hirschman is mistaken by a factor of 1,000 and there were just 676 deaths. That makes these vaccines 3 times more deadly than the smallpox vaccine (which kills 1 in a million) and smallpox is deemed to be too unsafe to use.

So even under the most ridiculous assumptions, there is no other way to interpret this data than to conclude the vaccines are unsafe and should be stopped.

Nobody in mainstream media, academia, or HHS is interested in talking to Hirschman

With a 65% death rate, you’d think the CDC would be doing an active investigation on this to collect the data.

You’d also think that after his Jan 26 video, Hirschman would be contacted by the CDC, FDA, NIH, NY TimesCNNWashington Post, and so on, wouldn’t you?


Just the Stew Peters Show (Jane Ruby), the Epoch TimesPolitiFact, and Steve Kirsch’s Newsletter.

Nobody from mainstream academia reached out to him for tissue samples to analyze or to write up his results in a paper that could be submitted to a medical journal so that it could be documented.

What can I say? They just do not want to know.

In January 2022, 65% of his embalming cases had this “problem” but nobody wants to look at it. Nobody!

I’m not surprised. They don’t want to learn the truth about these “vaccines.” They all just want to tell America one side of the story and censor any evidence that goes against that narrative.

Comments from Dr. Mike Yeadon regarding the mechanism of action

When assessing causality, one of the key criteria is a plausible mechanism of action. Here you go from Dr. Mike Yeadon.

Steve, I wish I was shocked, but none of us with an understanding that these gene based agents prompt our bodies to manufacture virus spike protein in uncontrolled amounts & in uncontrolled anatomical locations expected spike protein to do what it does in quantity: prompt blood to coagulate.

I’ve received the results of an informal survey conducted on behalf of a financial advisor to their client list. Questions included whether clients or their family members know someone who’s become very ill or died after vaccination & something like 2/3rds of respondents says they did. The results were sent to me to reinforce how commonplace these injuries & deaths are.

I personally know of four deaths and twice as many serious, not yet fatal illnesses after c19 “vaccinations”.

I know indirectly of two who were said to have been covid19 deaths. One was in their 80s & frail and the other, in their 60s, was living with a terminal cancer diagnosis.


The COVID vaccines are the largest clinical trial in world history.

What we have learned so far from the embalmers is troubling: it appears the vaccines have overtaken heart disease as the #1 leading cause of death in America today.

The CDC doesn’t have a clue it is happening. They still think that nobody has died from the vaccine. They refuse to look at the safety signals in VAERS and DMED. They don’t want to see any safety signals and they will not meet with anyone who challenges their point of view.

Death is one of many symptoms. Other side effects are a wide variety of cardiovascular, neurological, and autoimmune diseases, paralysis, loss of limbs, and potentially sterilization and AIDS. After a 90 day honeymoon period, vaccine efficacy turns negative. They also are known to increase cancers.

Stay tuned as we learn more in this clinical trial of the vaccines. I’m sure this isn’t the end of the story.

The California legislature is expected to mandate soon that everyone who works in California get vaccinated (AB 1993). This will increase the numbers and allow us to get the test results sooner. California is literally sacrificing its residents for the benefit of the rest of the country.

Although I live in California, I am self-employed. I suspect I will need to fire myself soon. I will not willingly comply with their law

February 13, 2022 Posted by | Solidarity and Activism, Video, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment