Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

More Important Ivermectin Study Results

Click here for more details on the map above
By Robert W Malone MD, MS | February 6, 2022

Strictly regular use of ivermectin as prophylaxis for COVID-19 leads to a 90% reduction in COVID-19 mortality rate, in a dose-response manner: definitive results of a prospective observational study of a strictly controlled 223,128 population from a city-wide program in Southern Brazil

Research Gate, February 2022 DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.20069.68320

This important preprint needs to hit alternative and mainstream media now.

The Study:

Background: Previously, we demonstrated that ivermectin use as prophylaxis for COVID-19 was associated with reductions in COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates, and in the risk of dying from COVID-19, irrespective of regularity and accumulated use of ivermectin, in an observational, prospectively obtained data from a strictly controlled city-wide program in a city in Southern Brazil (Itajaí, SC, Brazil) of of medically-based, optional use of ivermectin as prophylaxis for COVID-19.

In this study, our objective was to explore the data obtained from the program to evaluate whether the level of regularity of ivermectin use impacted in the reductions in these outcomes, aiming to determine if ivermectin showed a progressive dose-, regularity-response in terms of protection from COVID-19 and COVID-19 related outcomes.

Materials and methods: This is a prospective observational study of the program mention above, that used ivermectin at a dose of 0.2mg/kg/day for two consecutive days, every 15 days. We obtained and analyzed the data regarding the accumulated dose of ivermectin use, in addition to age and co-morbidities, to analyze the patterns of reduction of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates, and risk of dying from COVID-19, according to the regularity and amount of ivermectin used in a 5-month period.

Following definitions of regularity, we considered as strictly regular subjects that used at least 180mg of ivermectin (180mg = 30 tablets), and as sporadic users subjects that used 60mg (= 10 tablets) or less during the 5-month period.

Comparisons between subjects that did not use ivermectin and these two levels of regularity of ivermectin use were performed. Analysis of the intermediate levels of ivermectin use are present in the supplement appendix of this study. To analyze hospitalization and mortality rates, we utilized the database of COVID-19 infections of all participants, from Itajaí and outside. To analyze COVID-19 infection rate and risk of dying from COVID-19 we utilized the Itajaí city database.

Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed, followed by multivariate adjusted analysis for residual differences (doubly adjusted analysis).

Results:

  • Of the 7,345 cases of COVID-19, 3,034 occurred in non-users, 1,627 in sporadic users, and 289 in strict users, while the remaining cases occurred in the intermediate levels of ivermectin use. Strict users were older (p < 0.0001) and non-significant higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes and hypertension.
  • COVID-19 infection rate was 39% lower among strict users [4.03% infection rate; ( p < 0.0001] than in non-users (6.64% infection rate), and non-significant 11% reduction compared to sporadic users (4.54% infection rate) (n = 1,627 in each group; RR, 0.89; 95%CI 0.76 – 1.03; p = 0.11).
  • Hospitalization rate was reduced by 100% in strict users, compared to non-users and to sporadic users, both before and after Propensity score matching ( p < 0.0001).
  • After Propensity score matching, hospitalization rate was 35% lower among sporadic users than non-users (RR, 0.65; 95%CI, 0.44 – 0.70; p = 0.03).
  • In propensity score matched groups, multivariate-adjusted mortality rate was 90% lower in strict users compared to non-users (p = 0.003) and 79% lower than in sporadic users (p = 0.05), while sporadic users had a 37% reduction in mortality rate compared to non-users (p = 0.043).
  • Risk of dying from COVID-19 was 86% lower among strict users than non-users (p = 0.006) and marginally significant, 72% lower than sporadic users (p = 0.083), while sporadic users had a 51% reduction compared to non-users (p = 0.001).

Conclusion: Non-use of ivermectin was associated with a 10-times increase in mortality risk and 7-times increased risk of dying from COVID-19, compared to strictly regular use of ivermectin in a prospectively collected, strictly controlled population.

A progressive dose-response pattern was observed between level of ivermectin use and level of protection from COVID-19 related outcomes and consistent across different levels of ivermectin use.

The results of this study clearly demonstrate that prophylactic use of ivermectin must be initiated immediately for people in high risk categories in the United States and worldwide. This includes individuals with one or more co-morbidities and the middle aged/elderly. Our “design-to-fail” government funded clinical trials for early treatment and governmental obstructionism regarding life saving treatments to patients must end now.

The CDC chart below for all deaths since the start of the outbreak clearly shows a jump in deaths after 50 years old.

However, as the data for deaths per million per age group is not disclosed, so the age for start of prophylaxis has yet to be determined.

As Omicron has less pathogenicity and slightly different disease profile this too could influence what age prophylaxis treatment should begin. But the data are in, prophylactic use of ivermectin saves lives.

In regards to the table above, the age stratification of disease shows why a universal vaccination program for a vaccine with a high adverse event profile is not advised. It is time to stop all mandates at the Federal and State level. It is time to stop pushing this vaccine on children.

Research and clinical practice show that using re-purposed drugs for Covid-19 have huge benefits. These include multi-drug, multi-staged treatments for Covid-19 disease that prevent severe disease, decreases hospitalization rates and decreases death. It is time our government and state licensing board recognize this and let physicians practice medicine.

‘Off-label’ drug use: an FDA regulatory term, not a negative implication of its medical use. Int J Impot Res. 2008 Mar-Apr;20(2):135-44. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijir.3901619. Epub 2007 Nov 15. PMID: 18004389.

Highlights:

  • A doctor’s decision to inform the patient of the ‘off-label’ status of the prescription is not relevant to the physician’s standard of care for an informed consent case.
  • The FDA has specifically stated that its procedures and requirements have no effect on the practice of medicine and that the FDA does not prohibit doctors from prescribing drugs in an ‘off-label’ manner.
  • The FDA’s approval of a drug is immaterial to the effectiveness in the drug’s ‘off-label’ use. In fact, prescribing medication in an ‘off-label’ manner can constitute the standard of care in many cases.
  • A doctor’s duty is to practice medicine and treat his patient, not inform the patient of the FDA’s non-medically related labeling. Therefore, doctors should not be branded with the additional duty of disclosing non-pertinent information, such as the FDA’s medically irrelevant distinction, to their patients

*It is estimated that 21% of all prescription drugs are prescribed “off-label.”

For fun, I took the countries that reportedly use Ivermectin country-wide and compared them to the USA, Israel and Sweden. I chose a three month cut-off, although the results were extended further. I did this because I don’t know when some of the countries began ivermectin use.

Can you guess who now has the highest death rates per million? Yeh –

  1. USA
  2. Israel
  3. Sweden

Notes: I included – India, because although not all regions use Ivermectin – although the most populated due. Likewise Africa – which many nations treat with ivermectin prophylactically and these world maps do not break down Africa by Nations (weirdly imperialistic). I did not include Bulgaria, as although they use ivermectin – their death rate numbers are skewed for other reasons not worth delving into.

There are a lot of confounding variables here. Such as natural immunity, vaccination rates of the elderly and those with co-morbidities, as well as seasonality of the virus, vitamin D3/zinc levels and age of population.

But it is still an interesting snap shot as to where much of the world is right now.

February 6, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

China’s support is a game changer for Russia

BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | FEBRUARY 6, 2022

During the visit by President Vladimir Putin to Beijing on Friday, the world attention was focused on how far China would go in support of Russia in the latter’s standoff with the US and NATO. From the joint statement issued after the visit, China has given fulsome support to Russia, endorsing Moscow’s demand for security guarantee and its opposition to NATO expansion, the two core issues.

Russia never expected or sought any Chinese intervention in any military confrontation with the western alliance. Russia has the capability to safeguard its sovereignty.

The Chinese support to Russia at the present juncture can still manifest in a variety of ways. Aside China’s backing at the UN Security Council, what really matters most for Moscow would be the myriad ways in which Beijing can mitigate the effect of any harsh western sanctions against by way of transfer of technology, trade, investments, etc. Conceivably, Putin and Xi Jinping have reached an understanding. 

Already, a significant step has been taken in this direction during Putin’s visit with the agreement on new Russian oil and gas deals with China worth an estimated $117.5 billion, and China promising to ramp up Russia’s Far East exports. A new 30-year contract to supply 10 billion cubic meters (bcm) per year to China from Russia’s Far East was signed. 

Separately, Russian oil giant Rosneft signed a deal with China’s CNPC to supply 100 million tonnes of oil through Kazakhstan over 10 years, effectively extending an existing deal, which is worth an estimated $80bn. The construction of the Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline to China with a massive capacity of 50 bcm annually is also under discussion. 

No doubt, Russia is seriously diversifying its markets for oil and gas exports. This will create space for Moscow to negotiate with its European partners. The new deal with Beijing will not necessitate diversion of Russia’s gas exports to Europe, as they are linked to the gas reserves from the Pacific island of Sakhalin, whereas Russia’s European pipeline network sources gas from the Siberian fields. 

The ball is in now entirely in the European court — whether to continue to source assured energy supplies from Russia at such incredibly low prices or punish itself by forgoing that option. 

While sanctions may inflict some dislocation initially necessitating readjustments, Moscow will cope with it, as past experience shows. With around $640 billion in foreign exchange reserves, Moscow could persevere longer than the Europeans in the energy market. 

The big question is about Putin’s decisions regarding the dangerous situation on Russia’s western borders. The short answer is that Putin will not be browbeaten by the Biden Administration’s threat of sanctions. 

China does not consider that a full scale invasion of Ukraine is in the Russian calculus but it neatly sidesteps the issue, nonetheless. Putin acts very cautiously, and almost always is reactive. Be it in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria or Ukraine itself, that has been the pattern. Of course, it is a different matter that in all these instances, Putin acted decisively to make sure his objectives were realised. 

In the situation surrounding Ukraine, the Biden Administration is forcing Putin’s hands. The latest US and NATO troop reinforcements to Russia’s neighbours—particularly to the Baltic states, in close proximity to St. Petersburg — were completely unwarranted and can only be seen as a calculated act of provocation when there has so far been no evidence of an adequate justification for a major Russian military operation. 

Yet, there could be a method in this madness, given the real possibility of risky military operations in Donbass by an emboldened Ukrainian military or even worse, by the nationalist battalions in that region (to whom NATO has secretly provided a large influx of arms in recent weeks.) 

In the event of any attack on Donbass, make no mistake, Russian intervention is guaranteed. The legislation under consideration with the Duma in Moscow currently factors in precisely such a contingency. It calls upon the Russian government to recognise the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk and, secondly, authorises the government to provide with new weapons to these two “people’s republics.”            

A plausible scenario could be that Russia will patiently wait for the Ukrainian provocation. That is, it all boils down to a question of resolve. For Russia, the stakes are exceedingly high and its staying power is far greater than that of its Western adversaries. 

There is a big element of brinkmanship here. What is happening in Europe at the moment has turned out to be a huge distraction for the US and as time passes, the Biden Administration would rue that its Indo-Pacific strategy is faltering and it is bogged down. The likelihood of Russia backing off is zero.

Evidently, the North Korean missile testing is already putting enormous strain on the US’ alliance system in the Far East. Unlike Ukraine, the US’ security interests are directly affected. Yet, on Friday, a US-drafted statement condemning Pyongyang crash-landed. 

Ironically, China called on the US to be more flexible in its dealings with North Korea and joined six other member countries (including Russia and India) in refusing to sign the joint statement. 

China’s ambassador to the UN, Zhang Jun later told reporters, “If they do want to see some new breakthrough, they should show more sincerity and flexibility. They should come up with more attractive and more practical, more flexible approaches, policies and actions and accommodating the concerns of the DPRK.” 

This is where the US is facing the new reality that its Cold War mentality to isolate China in the Asia-Pacific region and Russia in Europe will not work.

The solidarity between China and Russia reflected in Friday’s joint statement goes far beyond the immediate crisis in Ukraine or the tensions over Taiwan and has an epochal significance heralding a new era in international relations based on a pluralistic world order where the role of the US will no longer be exclusive or defining. 

Russia and China have a broad consensus today on almost all core issues related to global strategic stability, which is unprecedented in modern history. 

The joint statement mentions the US not less than five times while highlighting the common stance of China and Russia on several key regional and global issues, including the expansion of NATO, the US-led ideological clique in the name of democracy, the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy, AUKUS, etc. 

Xi told Putin he is willing to work with him to plan a blueprint and guide the direction of China-Russia ties under the new historical conditions. China has lent support to the fundamental principle of the indivisibility of security that Russia is upholding. In these circumstances, if the US with its zero-sum mindset thinks it can defeat Russia through sanctions, it is being delusional. 

Stonewalling the Russian demands is not going to be feasible, either. The challenge facing the Biden Administration will be how to preserve its credibility, especially in the European eyes. For, if Russia is compelled to act militarily to defend its non-negotiable core interests, as it will be at some point, a dangerous escalation may happen. 

Is the US ready for an open-ended conflict with Russia? Are its allies game for it? Can they afford it? Will their domestic opinion allow it — war with a thermonuclear nuclear power in Europe to defend ill-defined notions? 

A far more judicious course would be to seek a diplomatic formula that takes into account all of these self-evident realities and negotiate some kind of a document that guarantees Russia’s legitimate security needs.

February 6, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

Increased energy prices could “cause heart attacks and strokes”

In the middle of the cost of living crisis, the press has found yet another reason people might keel over… and it’s still not the vaccine.

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | February 5, 2022

Our UK readers will be familiar with the press coverage of the cost of living crisis in this country, as wages continue to fall further and further behind inflation, and the economy reels from the deliberately devastating lockdown, the cost of everything from food to fuel is ever increasing.

People are understandably troubled and anxious, whether or not the energy cost crisis is genuine or manufactured for the sake of profits, the reality is that many people will face the choice of heating their homes or eating enough food over the last two months of winter and into the spring.

This could easily result in people – especially the elderly or disabled – suffering health problems or even death due to the cold or malnutrition. Many of these people will likely become “covid cases” or “covid deaths” once they’re subjected to the totally unreliable tests.

It’s all a perfect little circuit. And it serves the Covid agenda in more ways than one, because it’s just handed the press yet another explanation for heart attacks that haven’t happened yet.

It seems like only a few days ago we ran an article pointing out all the numerous different reasons the press are predicting people will have heart attacks this year… and that’s because it was.

Stress, anxiety, the weather, “long covid” and a plague of undiagnosed aortic stenosis are all predicted to cause thousands upon thousands of heart attacks and strokes in the near future.

And now so is the increased cost of living.

Appearing on Lorraine on ITV yesterday morning, Dr Amir Khan claimed:

… if you can’t afford to heat your home, it actually causes an increased risk of developing heart attacks and strokes because your blood vessels contract to conserve heat, which pushes your blood pressure up, and over time that has an impact on your heart attack risk.”

In future, maybe they should simply run press releases saying “Covid vaccine only thing in world which doesn’t cause a heart attack”

As Neil Oliver pointed out on Twitter…

February 6, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

How the Biomedical State Maintains the ‘All the Experts Agree’ False Consensus

 

The Daily Bell | February 4, 2022

We’ve previously explored the mind-numbing “experts say” mantra that the corporate media parrots non-stop. Talking heads incessantly implore the peasant class to “respect the science.”

The purpose is to create a mirage of consensus in order to discourage real journalists or normal people from looking into matters themselves. This tactic is pervasive, but nowhere has it been more widely employed than in the COVID era.

Because, if three key facts were permitted to infect the public consciousness, they would inevitably result in mass upheaval of the ruling class that perches on top of society, feeding on it like vultures:

At every turn, the “experts” got it wrong.

So how does the biomedical establishment maintain the façade of legitimacy?

The biomedical state uses multiple mechanisms to discourage scientists from dissenting from the approved narrative

You’ve heard the talking point ad nauseam: “99% of scientists agree the vaccines are safe and effective.”

First of all, that figure is not vindicated by any actual polling; it’s just an offhand catchphrase.

Second, what happens to scientists who deviate from the “safe and effective” slogan?

JFK Jr. explains:

“As director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Dr. Anthony Fauci dispenses $6.1 billion in annual taxpayer-provided funding for scientific research, allowing him to dictate the subject, content, and outcome of scientific health research across the globe. Fauci uses the financial clout at his disposal to wield extraordinary influence over hospitals, universities, journals, and thousands of influential doctors and scientists—whose careers and institutions he has the power to ruin, advance, or reward.”

  • You’ll get smeared in the corporate media

Exhibit A:

Epidemiologists at Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford – three of the most highly-regarded mainstream institutes of higher learning in the world – authored the Great Barrington Declaration in October 2020.

The gist of the document (which you can read here) is that a COVID Zero policy (the elimination of the SARS-CoV-2) virus in the population is a pipe dream. The social distancing and lockdown orders had devastating effects on public physical and mental health. Those at risk of severe illness or death from infectious disease should be protected while the non-vulnerable (the vast majority of the population) should resume normal life.

Those rational, science-based propositions should have been aired publicly in a healthy national debate.

But, predictably, open debate is not how Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins, NIH Director, do things. Instead of debating the merits of the Barrington Declaration, Collins sent an email to Fauci on Oct 8 (later leaked) that read:

“This proposal from three fringe epidemiologists… seems to be getting a lot of attention – and even a co-signature from Nobel Prize winner Mike Leavitt and Stanford. There needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises. I don’t think like that on line yet – is it underway?”

Does that sound like the language of a public health servant doing God’s work to protect the people from a deadly virus – or that of a cynical political operative?

Is coordinating a media hitjob on ideological opponents part of the NIH Director’s job description?

More importantly, though, if they can orchestrate a smear campaign against three “fringe” epidemiologists from Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford, what signal does that send to a run-of-the-mill MD in Wisconsin who might be inclined to ask critical questions?

The message is obvious: “shut your mouth or we’ll come for you.”

 

They don’t even have to go after everyone. All they need is to bag a few high-profile scalps to set the example.

February 6, 2022 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Panama Ransacked in 1989

Tales of the American Empire | February 3, 2022

George H. W. Bush and Manuel Noriega were partners in crime. As CIA chief and later Vice President, Bush worked with Noriega to control Central America.

Noriega had a long career of violence as a solider and CIA operative in Panama. Noriega helped the CIA run a massive cocaine smuggling operation that produced millions of dollars each month to fund private CIA armies and enrich CIA players. He then demanded a larger share of cocaine profits while refusing to openly support the CIA’s effort to overthrow the popular government of Nicaragua.

As an American trained intelligence officer, Noriega collected “negative information” about both friends and foes. He used this to protect himself from an American coup or assassination by telling people this material would be released should something happen to him.

Once newly elected President Bush and his team entered office, ousting Noriega was a top priority. This would be not be simple because Bush needed to ransack the entire nation to seize all evidence of his criminal activities. This invasion resulted in massive destruction and thousands of fatalities.

_____________________________

John Perkins explains the CIA’s assassination of Panamanian President Omar Torrijos; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-41Q…

“Panama Strongman Said to Trade in Drugs, Arms, and Illicit Money”; Seymour Hersh; New York Times; June 12, 1986; https://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/12/wo…

“Drugs – General Noriega – Panama – Documentary – 1988”; Julian Manyon; ThamesTV; verified the blackmail of Bush; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0KHj…

“The Dirty Secrets of George Bush”; Howard Kohn; Rolling Stone; November 3, 1988; pre-election bombshell story; https://www.rollingstone.com/politics…

“The Dirty Secrets of George Bush: Blackmail, CIA Drug Smuggling and Trafficking”; interview with former CIA officer John Stockwell; Dec 10, 1988; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac3c0…

“The Panama Deception”; a great 1992 documentary about Noriega and the propaganda used to justify the bloody American invasion; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo6yV…

“George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography”; Webster Tarpley; 1991; https://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?…

Related Tale: “The CIA’s Cocaine Corridor”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifp1v…

Related Tale: “US Marines Seized Panama in 1903”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hItHA…

Related Tale: “The Empire’s 2009 Coup in Honduras”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3RXl…

February 6, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

MSNBC Misinfo: Zeke Emanuel Peddles Fear, Says Unvaxxed Children ‘Likely To Get Serious Case Of Covid’

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | February 5, 2022

Dr Ezekiel Emanuel – former Biden Covid-19 adviser and brother of former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (and the real ‘Ari Gold’ from Entourage) appeared on MSNBC Wednesday, where he proceeded to peddle the lie that unvaccinated children are ‘likely’ to get a ‘serious’ case of Covid.

“This repeats what we’ve seen in older kids, five and above, where we know the vaccine does protect very well. And there we still have under 50%, I believe, of the children vaccinated, and that’s a serious problem for the country,” Emanuel told host Kristen Welker after she asked about parents’ willingness to vaccinate their children. “Parents have to be more willing – I think they hear some of these rare side effects and think they’re very common.”

“With the omicron variant, kids are either going to get the vaccine or they’re likely to get a serious condition of omicron. Having omicron with the vaccine is almost invariably going to be better and safer for children,” Emanuel added. “I am confused about parents’ attitudes. Five and above seems like a no-brainer. Two to five, I understand some hesitancy. Two and under with the small dose, I think probably a very good idea.”

It’s been widely established that Omicron is a relatively mild strain of Covid – from which children face an extremely low risk.

Another recent study cited by economist Emily Oster also reiterated the extremely low risk young children face of severe COVID-19 outcomes. “What we can say is that based on everything we know, the risks to small children from COVID-19 are extremely small,” she wrote. –Fox News

MSNBC faced harsh criticism over Emanuel’s statement.

The network even tweeted (and then deleted) the easily debunked misinformation, receiving a serious ratio of comments to ‘likes.’

Intentional? Or…

Following the backlash, Emanuel issued a Saturday tweet in which he says he “misspoke.”

February 5, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Steve’s fact-based COVID-19 hub

By Steve Kirsch | February 2, 2022

Spotify made a press release about their new platform policies which prohibits any information which in their sole opinion may cause offline harm or poses a direct threat to public health. They refer people to their “fact-based” COVID-19 hub for accurate information.

I think their “fact-based” hub is filled with misinformation, so I decided to write my own simplified version that takes just a couple of minutes to read.

Here it is:

  1. Early treatments using repurposed drugs in a proven protocol are the best way to treat COVID. Treating as soon as symptoms appear is key. Fareed and Tyson have now treated over 10,000 people infected with COVID without any deaths as long as the people arrived early in the disease. The NIH and CDC ignore these treatments. I recommend you choose an early treatment protocol where there have been at least 10,000 COVID patients treated early without a single death (such as the Fareed-Tyson protocol), and start it as soon as you have symptoms.
  2. The evidence is clear that all of the current COVID vaccines available in the US today are both unsafe and ineffective. They are not suitable for anyone because they are more likely to kill you than to save you. If they don’t kill you, they may permanently damage your immune system or leave you permanently disabled. Avoid these at all costs. After 90 days, it appears that the vaccines have negative efficacy against Omicron, making you up to twice as likely to be infected. This is likely why case rates are so high in highly vaccinated countries. See Incriminating Evidence for details.
  3. Cloth and surgical masks do not work. There have been just two randomized trials with masks and COVID (Denmark and Bangladesh) and they proved that surgical and cloth masks have no effect. Similarly, N95 masks do not work in practice either. The FAA rules basically require you to wear these masks on planes, mandating a medical intervention that is much more likely to make you sick and has no chance to protect you. See Incriminating Evidence for details.
  4. If you require PPE that might protect you from COVID, consider a 3M respirator with a P100 filter. Even better is to use a PAPR with your respirator (with a P100 or P3 filter). See this article on masks and respirators for details. These products that protect you do not protect others. The FAA will not allow these devices on a plane.
  5. Social distancing is not the right way to think about risk reduction. Think instead the 4 D’s: draft, distance, density, duration. Putting yourself in an unventilated small room at close distance to a source for a long duration will maximize your exposure. The 6 foot rule for standing in line is nonsensical since as soon as you enter the airspace of the person in front of you, you will be breathing the virus from people who were standing in that spot hours (to days) ago (depending on the ventilation in the area). There is absolutely nothing magical about 6 feet.
  6. Mitigation strategies such as testing, masking, isolation, and vaccination are largely ineffective. See this article for a convincing example.
  7. The best way to treat COVID is to do the opposite of what the CDC and FDA advises. So when they tell you to mask up, get boosted, avoid all repurposed drugs and supplements (including ivermectin, HCQ, fluvoxamine, vitamin D, zinc, aspirin, budesonide, etc), take paxlovid, molnupiravir, and remdesivir, you know what to do.
  8. There is only significant spread if you have symptoms. For example, in a study in China, they looked at 1,174 close contacts of these asymptomatic individuals and could not find ONE CASE of a person getting COVID from the asymptomatic people. Therefore, testing asymptomatic people is unnecessary because it is a lot of effort for near 0 gain.
  9. Omicron is very mild compared to Delta. After you recover from an Omicron infection, data shows you will be protected from Delta as well.
  10. As of December 3, 2021, Omicron had spread to 38 countries, but the WHO couldn’t find anyone who died from Omicron. How is this a national emergency?
  11. People who get the virus and recover are always better off than a vaccinated patient. Unlike vaccinated people, if a naturally infected patient is ever re-infected, they cannot transmit the virus to others (as far as we know so far).
  12. Censorship of COVID advice by social media (in particular the hazards of the vaccines and the effectiveness of early treatment protocols) has cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
  13. None of the health authorities issuing mandates and directives are willing to participate in a recorded scientific discussion with the so-called “misinformation spreaders” such as Robert Malone, Peter McCullough, Robert Kennedy, … Our authorities are afraid of the truth.
  14. The CDC, FDA, and NIH are all corrupt agencies that have looked the other way at safety signals. There are over 1M adverse events in VAERS and these represent over 40M adverse events in the real world. This is unprecedented, yet the CDC isn’t able to find a safety signal other than a “slightly elevated” risk of myocarditis. Attempts to bring the VAERS data to their attention is futile. They won’t even do a proper calculation of the underreporting factor which is required to do a proper risk-benefit analysis. They ignore the DMED data entirely.

Compare my fact-based COVID-19 hub to Spotify’s and let me know which one you like better.

February 5, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Vaccinators Won’t Stop Vaccinating

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | February 4, 2022

Many experts have sounded the alarm that the COVID-19 pandemic was all about the shot1 and a larger agenda to impose totalitarian control worldwide.2 Already, one shot has turned into two doses and a third booster. A fourth booster is also being discussed, including by Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, who said that the efficacy of the third shot is likely to decline over several months, necessitating another shot soon thereafter.3

“I will be surprised when we get that data in the coming weeks that it’s holding nicely over time — I would expect that it’s not going to hold great,” Bancel said in an interview with Goldman Sachs.4 Conveniently, Moderna is working on an Omicron-specific jab that they hope to release as early as March 20225 — and this is only the beginning.

Writing on Substack, contributor Eugyppius explained, “Moderna, just one of multiple pharmaceuticals eager to exploit our new vaccine mania, are expanding their manufacturing capacity to produce as many as 6 billion mRNA vaccine doses per year.”6 The information came straight from the horse’s mouth, at a virtual meeting held the first day of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Davos Agenda 2022, at a session titled “COVID-19: What’s Next?”7

Along with Bancel, the meeting was attended by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Richard Hatchett, CEO of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), and professor Annelies Wilder-Smith from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who together detailed their plans for “vaccine mania” to persist indefinitely.

Combined Shots Planned to Avoid ‘Compliance Issues’

During the discussion, Bancel states that Moderna is actively preparing for “what should the vaccine be in the fall of 2022, and what should it contain.” The company is “working with public health experts like Fauci’s team to figure this out. Because soon we’re going to have to decide what goes into the vaccine for fall of 2022,” he said.8

Fauci’s NIAID is part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), which, some may be surprised to learn, actually owns half the patent for Moderna’s COVID-19 injection. In fact, the NIH owns thousands of pharmaceutical patents, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spends $4.9 billion a year out of its $12 billion budget buying and distributing vaccines.

“Tony Fauci was able to choose, to designate, four of his high-level employees who each get individual patent shares,” according to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in an interview with James Corbett.9 “They will collect $150,000 a year for life if the Moderna vaccine is approved, which it has been.”10

In addition to working closely with Fauci, Moderna is planning to combine multiple shots, such as a COVID-19 shot, a flu shot and a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) shot, into one injection — coming in 2023 — to help avoid “compliance issues.” He said:11

“The other piece we’re working on is for 2023, is how do we make it possible from a societal standpoint that people want to be vaccinated?

And we’re going to do this by preparing combinations, we’re working on the flu vaccine, we’re working on an RSV vaccine, and our goal is to be able to have a single annual booster, so that we don’t have compliance issues, where people don’t want to get two to three shots a winter, but they get one dose, where they get a booster for corona, and a booster for flu and RSV, to make sure that people get their vaccine.”

When asked how soon this would occur, he continued:12,13

“So the RSV program is now in Phase 3, the flu program is in Phase 2 and soon in Phase 3, I hope as soon as second quarter of this year. So the best case scenario would be the fall of 2023, as a best case scenario, I don’t think it would [be available] in every country, but we believe it’s possible to operate in some countries next year.”

Vaccines for at Least 20 Pathogens in the Works

SARS-Cov-2 isn’t the only virus that Moderna and other pharmaceutical companies, along with health officials, are intent on targeting with more shots. Remember zika virus, which Kennedy described as another pandemic fabricated for the purpose of selling pharmaceuticals and advancing totalitarian control?14 There’s a vaccine on the way.

How about Nipah virus? Nipah virus, a zoonotic pathogen for which no treatments exist, is the inspiration for the film “Contagion.”15 The virus can only be experimented on in BSL-4 laboratories. As an aside, the National Bio and Agro-Defence Facility in Kansas will be the first biocontainment facility16 in the U.S. where research on Nipah (and Ebola) can be conducted on livestock.

In 2019, Nipah Malaysia was also among the deadly virus strains shipped17 from Canada’s National Microbiology Lab to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If you haven’t heard of Nipah yet, you likely will soon — another vaccine is in the works for it. Bancel said:18,19

“We’re working with Dr. Fauci’s team, we’re working with Richard [Hatchett], to work on many more pathogens … The entire scientific community has known for years that there’s at least around 20-ish pathogens that are a risk for which we need vaccines, you know we have zika vaccine in Phase 2 … we’re working on a Nipah vaccine, those are viruses that not everybody has heard of.

Because we need to have the data. What dose, what construct from a genetic standpoint is required … so that if a new pathogen emerges from that family we can very quickly move into a Phase 3.”

More mRNA Shots Are Coming

Many other vaccines are also under development, including a Phase 3 study looking at combining Pfizer’s COVID-19 injection with their Prevnar 20™ (pneumococcal 20-valent conjugate vaccine) for adults aged 65 and older.20

In a related news release, Kathrin U. Jansen, Ph.D., senior vice president and head of vaccine research and development at Pfizer spoke about the importance of “raising awareness of the importance of adult” vaccinations, echoing Bancel in their desire to create combination shots so adults can get multiple vaccines at one doctor or pharmacy visit.

“As the COVID-19 vaccines and booster doses continue to be administered, we believe that health care providers have an opportunity to talk to their adult patients about other recommended vaccines in line with CDC guidance,” she said.21

An agreement between Pfizer and BioNTech to develop the first mRNA shingles vaccine was also reached in January 2022.22 According to a Pfizer news release, “While there are currently approved vaccines for shingles, there is an opportunity to develop an improved vaccine that potentially shows high efficacy and better tolerability, and is more efficient to produce globally, by utilizing mRNA technology.”23

A Phase 1 study by Moderna for its mRNA Epstein-Barr virus shot is also underway. The first dose of the experimental shot was given to a study subject January 5, 2022,. In a news release, Moderna detailed their intent on rolling out additional mRNA vaccines against a number of additional viruses as well:24

“The start of this Phase 1 study is a significant milestone as we continue to advance mRNA vaccines against latent viruses, which remain in the body for life after infection and can lead to chronic medical conditions. Moderna is committed to developing a portfolio of first-in-class vaccines against latent viruses for which there are no approved vaccines today, including vaccines against CMV [cytomegalovirus], EBV and HIV.

Our research team is working to bring even more vaccines against latent viruses to the clinic. We believe these vaccines could have a profound impact on quality of health for hundreds of millions of people around the world.”

Other mRNA shots also in development include:

  • An mRNA cancer vaccine for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)25
  • mRNA influenza shots, which are under development by several companies, including Pfizer, Moderna, Sanofi and Translate Bio26
  • An mRNA HIV vaccine, one of which is being studied by Moderna in collaboration with the NIH27
  • Various additional mRNA cancer vaccines, including one targeting advanced melanoma — being developed by BioNTech and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals28 — and several being developed by Moderna, targeting melanoma, NSCLC, colorectal cancer and pancreatic cancer29

Ramping Up Production for Billions of Doses

In case there were any doubt that the powers that be intend to use injections as an increasingly integral part of your health care routine and daily life, Bancel described plans for billions of doses of shots to be manufactured in a matter of months. He said during the WEF session:30,31

“The other piece is manufacturing. If you look in 2020, we were able to ship 20 million doses to the U.S. government when the vaccine was authorized. That is not a lot.

But this year we’re going to have 2 to 3 billion doses of capacity in a six-month timeframe, which is what I believe it will take us to get authorization of a vaccine, if all the work has been done before … you could have 1.5 billion doses available in six months, and that’s just from Moderna. And you have other platforms, it could be a much bigger number …”

With censorship now so pervasive, and Big Tech colluding with dictators and pharmaceutical companies to bury the harms occurring through these experimental vaccines — including death — it’s now more important than ever to let your voice be heard in support of medical freedom and opposition of government health officials intimidating, threatening and coercing citizens to violate their conscientiously-held beliefs.

The ethical principal of informed consent to medical risk taking, which includes the legal right to make voluntary decisions about getting experimental injections, must be protected. For now, however, as Eugyppius explained:32

“The vaccinators are a great sword of Damocles over our heads. As I type this, they are scouring the earth for the novel pathogens their products require, and they, together with their bureaucratic and academic allies, will do their level best to call into being new pandemic scares and vaccination campaigns whenever possible — perhaps every flu season.”

Sources and References

February 5, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | Leave a comment

EU Wants To Keep Vaccine Passports In Place For Another ENTIRE YEAR

By Steve Watson | Summit News | February 4, 2022

The unelected bureaucrat governors of the EU in the European Commission have proposed keeping the bloc’s COVID vaccine passport system in place for another entire year, despite the fact that many member countries are ramping down restrictions.

In a notice on its website, the Commission states “Today the European Commission is proposing to extend the EU Digital COVID Certificate by a year, until 30 June 2023.”

It continues, “The COVID-19 virus continues to be prevalent in Europe and at this stage it is not possible to determine the impact of a possible increase in infections in the second half of 2022 or of the emergence of new variants.”

“Extending the Regulation will ensure that travellers can continue using their EU Digital COVID Certificate when travelling in the EU where Member States maintain certain public health measures,” the statements adds.

It continues, “The Commission is adopting the proposal today to make sure the European Parliament and the Council can conclude the legislative procedure in time before the current Regulation expires.”

The move comes even as several countries, including Denmark, Norway, Italy, Sweden, France, in addition to non-EU countries such as Switzerland and England move to scrap restrictions including the vaccine passes.

The European Commission admits in its statement that it is up to the individual countries whether they carry on using the EU COVID vaccine passport scheme.

“The domestic use of EU Digital COVID Certificates remains a matter for Member States to decide, the statement notes, adding “The EU legislation on the EU Digital COVID Certificate neither prescribes nor prohibits the domestic use of EU Digital COVID Certificate (such as for access to events or restaurants).”

It also notes that “At the same time, where a Member State establishes a system of COVID-19 certificate for domestic purposes, it should continue to ensure that the EU Digital COVID Certificate is also fully accepted for those purposes. Beyond that, the Commission also encourages Member States to align their domestic validity periods with the validity period set at EU level for the purpose of travel.”

As we reported in November, despite vaccine passport schemes and high vaccination rates in many of the countries affected, COVID cases across Europe continued to surge as winter kicked in.

In addition, a recent investigation by experts in Spain concluded that vaccine passports have no significant impact on reducing COVID-19 infection rates.

The findings are similar to evidence found by the UK government that vaccine passports could actually increase Covid rates in the country.

The Spanish study noted that the only positives of such a scheme are that it “warns people that there is still danger from the pandemic and encourages vaccination uptake among the reticent.”

In other words, although vaccine passports have no discernible impact on their stated goal – reducing the spread of COVID-19 – they do succeed in keeping people fearful and compliant.

That conclusion dovetails with a recent admission by French Minister of Health Olivier Véran that the vaccine passports are “a disguised form of vaccination obligation,” but are “more effective.”

February 5, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

The ‘Science’ of Manipulation: Researchers Craft Messages of Guilt, Shame to Foster Vaccine Compliance

By Ann Tomoko Rosen | The Defender | February 4, 2022

There’s an entire field of research dedicated to developing messaging designed to persuade “vaccine-hesitant” individuals to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

None of the messaging examined by researchers involves conveying factual evidence that supports the claims — widely disseminated by Big Pharma, Big Media and public health agencies — that the vaccines are “safe” and “effective.”

Researchers last month published the results of a clinical trial involving two survey experiments on how to manufacture consent for COVID vaccines.

The Yale-sponsored study, “Persuasive messaging to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions,” examined how different persuasive messages affected 1) intentions to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, 2) willingness to persuade friends and relatives to get the vaccine, 3) fear of those who have not been vaccinated, and 4) social judgment of people who choose not to vaccinate.

According to the study’s authors:

“Given the considerable amount of skepticism about the safety and efficacy of a COVID-19 vaccine, it has become increasingly important to understand how public health communication can play a role in increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake.”

The paper did not address the underlying reasons someone might have concerns about the safety or efficacy of COVID vaccines but focused instead exclusively on how to persuade them to get the vaccine.

From the paper:

“We conducted two pre-registered experiments to study how different persuasive messages affect intentions to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, willingness to persuade friends and relatives to receive one, and negative judgments of people who choose not to vaccinate.

“In the first experiment, we tested the efficacy of a large number of messages against an untreated control condition … In Experiment 2, we retested the most effective messages from Experiment 1 on a nationally representative sample of American adults.”

The messages tested by the researchers have been woven into mainstream media narratives and public health campaigns throughout the world. But the study completion date for part 1 was July 8, 2020, which means all of these messages were created prior to the release of any science to support them.

The baseline information control message states:

“To end the COVID-19 outbreak, it is important for people to get vaccinated against COVID-19 whenever a vaccine becomes available. Getting the COVID-19 vaccine means you are much less likely to get COVID-19 or spread it to others. Vaccines are safe and widely used to prevent diseases and vaccines are estimated to save millions of lives every year.”

In order to establish which messaging strategies elicited an inclination to get vaccinated, 10 additional messages were added to bring context to the baseline message.

These messages incorporated themes of self-interest, community interest, guilt, embarrassment, anger, bravery, trust in science, personal freedom, economic freedom and community economic benefit.

“We find that persuasive messaging that invokes prosocial vaccination and social image concerns is effective at increasing intended uptake and also the willingness to persuade others and judgments of non-vaccinators,” the researchers wrote.

To study the impacts of guilt, embarrassment and anger, researchers prompted people to think about how they would feel if they did not get vaccinated and then spread the virus to others.

“Emotions are thought to play a role in cooperation, either by motivating an individual to take an action because of a feeling that they experience or restraining them from taking an action because of the emotional response it would provoke in others.”

The “not brave” and “trust in sciences” messages were designed to evoke concerns about reputation and social image. The “not brave” message “reframed the idea that being unafraid of the virus is not a brave action, but instead selfish, and that the way to demonstrate bravery is by getting vaccinated because it shows strength and concern for others.”

The “trust in science” message suggested, “those who do not get vaccinated do not understand science and signal this ignorance to others.”

Personal freedom, economic freedom and community economic benefit messages drew on concerns linked to COVID restrictions.

Overall, it was a message that appealed to community interest, reciprocity and a sense of embarrassment that proved most persuasive, resulting in a 30% increase in intention to vaccinate, a 24% increase in willingness to advise a friend to get vaccinated and a 38% increase in negative opinions of people who decline the vaccines relative to the placebo message.

Community interest messages that incorporate embarrassment were determined to be most effective in getting people to encourage others to get the vaccine, while “not brave” messaging showed the most promise in creating negative judgments of non-vaccinators.

The Yale study findings are consistent with another recent paper, “Vaccination as a Social Contract,” which demonstrated people view vaccination as a social contract and are less willing to cooperate with those who refuse vaccination.

The study stated:

“The experiments consistently showed that especially compliant (i.e., vaccinated) individuals showed less generosity toward nonvaccinated individuals … It is concluded that vaccination is a social contract in which cooperation is the morally right choice.

“Individuals act upon the social contract, and more so the stronger they perceive it as a moral obligation. Emphasizing the social contract could be a promising intervention to increase vaccine uptake, prevent free riding, and, eventually, support the elimination of infectious diseases.”

Forget the facts, appeal to ‘values’

Saad Omer, one of the authors of the Yale study, has an extensive interest in public health messaging.

His efforts to combat vaccine hesitancy earned him a spot on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Strategic Advisory Group of Experts working Group on COVID-19 Vaccines, the Sabine Vaccine Institute’s Board of Trustees and the WHO’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety.

In 2020, Omer initiated a “Building Vaccine Confidence Through Tailored Messaging Campaigns” project involving randomized trials in five countries using social media messaging to increase COVID and childhood vaccine coverage.

In his keynote address at the first WHO Global Infodemiology Conference in June 2020, Omer referenced “moral foundation theory” and suggested appealing to values could change decision-making behaviors.

Omer provided details about a messaging study for the HPV vaccine and discussed how similar strategies could be applied to create compliance for COVID measures:

“We wanted to test out, can we have a purity-based message? So we showed them pictures of genital warts and described a vignette, a narrative, a story, talking about how someone got genital warts and how disgusting they were and how pure vaccines are that sort of restore the sanctity of the body.

“So we just analyzed these data. This was a randomized control trial with apriori outcomes. We found approximately 20 percentage point effect on people’s likelihood of getting an HPV vaccine in the next 6 months …

“We are trying out liberty-based messages or liberty-mediated messaging around this behavior related to COVID-19 outbreak. That wearing a mask or taking precautions eventually make you free, regain your autonomy. Because if the disease rates are low, your activities can resume.”

The ‘science’ of infodemiology, infoveillance and infodemic

Omer is one of many prominent voices in what is known as the field of “infodemiology,” a term coined in 2002 by Dr. Gunter Eysenbach.

As the first infodemiologist and founder of the Journal of Medical Internet Research, Eysenbach defines infodemiology as ”the science of distribution and determinants of information in an electronic medium, specifically the Internet, or in a population, with the ultimate aim to inform public health and public policy.”

Eysenbach also coined the terms “infoveillance,” defined as “a type of syndromic surveillance that specifically utilizes information found online,” and “infodemic,” which refers to “an overabundance of information” that generally includes deliberate attempts to disseminate wrong information to undermine the public health response and advance alternative agendas of groups or individuals.”

Using just three words, Eysenbach created a scientific niche, identified a problem and proposed at least part of a so-called solution.

The WHO readily embraced this language during the pandemic. An editorial in the August 2020 issue of The Lancet began with a quote from WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus: “We’re not just fighting a pandemic; we’re fighting an infodemic.”

The WHO hosted several infodemiology conferences throughout the pandemic. Asserting that “misinformation costs lives,” the WHO, the United Nations and other groups created the perfect justification for social media surveillance and the suppression of dissent.

In 2020, the WHO created a resolution asking member states to take measures to leverage digital technologies to counter “misinformation” and “disinformation” and worked with more than 50 digital companies and social media platforms, including TikTok and even Tinder, to support these efforts.

The efforts to eliminate “misinformation” resulted in unprecedented censorship of virtually anything that steps outside of state-sanctioned consensus and the creation of a captive audience primed to accept a singular narrative.

A National Defense Authorization Act amendment in 2012 that legalized the use of propaganda on the American public makes it easier for governments to create self-serving narratives.

And thanks to a multi-billion dollar budget from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), we are under the influence of the best messages money can buy — whether or not those messages are true.

This is likely why the CDC, public health departments and mainstream media can make broad assertions like this: “COVID-19 vaccines were developed quickly while maintaining the highest safety standard possible,” and this: “Hydroxychloroquine shouldn’t be used to treat COVID-19,” and claim they are “fact.”

Articles and posts that challenge those assertions are regularly removed if they’re even permitted to be published in the first place.

Public health compliance: A cottage industry

Yale is not the only university researching the science of compliance. Academic institutions and government agencies throughout the world are immersed in this emerging behavioral science.

In February 2021, the University of Pennsylvania newsletter, Penn Today, published, “When the Message Matters, Use Science to Craft It,” covering behavioral scientist Jessica Fishman’s Message Effects Lab (MEL) initiative and research related to “what sways decision-making,” particularly with regard to COVID vaccination and testing.

MEL currently has partnerships and ongoing projects with the World Bank, the National Institutes of Health, the CDC, Penn Medicine, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Independence Blue Cross/Blue Shield and the Government of Canada to address health-related behaviors.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a branch of HHS, also sponsored research to explore influences on COVID vaccine decision-making. The study, “Attitudes Toward a Potential SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine: A Survey of U.S. Adults,” concluded:

“We found that a substantial proportion (42.2%) of participants in a national survey conducted during the coronavirus pandemic would be hesitant to accept vaccination against COVID-19. Black race was one of the strongest independent predictors of not accepting vaccination; this is especially alarming, given the outsized impact of COVID-19 among African-Americans.

“Our findings suggest that many of the individuals who responded ‘not sure’ may accept vaccination if given credible information that the vaccine is safe and effective. As vaccine development proceeds at an unprecedented pace, parallel efforts to proactively develop messages to foster vaccine acceptance are needed to achieve control of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Behavioral scientist Dr. Rupali Limaye took the messaging a step further. She teaches a free online training course, offered by Johns Hopkins University, that “prepares parents of school-age children, PTAs, community members and school staff to be Vaccine Ambassadors and promote vaccine acceptance in their communities.”

Limaye will be a panelist for an interactive webinar “Making COVID-19 vaccines APPEALing: Pilot message testing in India,” later this month.

Changing messages, same goals

While government agencies and the scientific community cling to unsupported beliefs about vaccine safety and efficacy, they appear to recognize the importance of constantly revisiting their understanding of the impacts of messaging.

UPenn’s updated research found intentions around vaccination have changed. The university’s Annenberg School for Communication reported:

“The researchers found that trust in scientific institutions and health authorities was central to individuals’ intentions to be vaccinated, especially in the early part of the pandemic. However, as the pandemic continued, other factors related to trust emerged …

“The evidence, the researchers wrote, ‘documents the need for the public health community to redouble its efforts to preemptively and persistently communicate not only about how vaccines in general work but also about their benefits, safety, and effectiveness.’”

Research from Civics Analytics, a technology company that creates data-driven audience campaigns, seconds the notion that effective messaging must evolve.

With funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the company explored COVID concerns among different demographics and determined that a “one-size-fits-all” message would not work. The company said:

“In the spring of 2021, before the Delta variant emerged in the U.S. and when vaccine mandates had not yet been implemented, we found that messages highlighting experiences that are off-limits to unvaccinated individuals (such as concerts or international travel) or emphasizing personal choice were most persuasive…

“As you’ll see in this research, the most persuasive messages have changed.”

According to Civics Analytics, FOMO (fear of missing out) and “personal decision” messages were the most impactful. But more current data indicates the “protecting children” message has become more effective at persuading people to get vaccinated.

From the study:

“For general messaging targeting all unvaccinated people, focus on protecting children from COVID-19 and on the financial ramifications of contracting the virus.”

The company found “vaccine safety,” “scary COVID statistics” and “personal story” messages were inclined to backfire and could decrease the likelihood of vaccinating.

Perhaps some good scientists will advance the learning curve and study what happens when the public discovers that “proven messages” lack supporting scientific data.

©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.

February 5, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

Eli Yale Surveillance State

By Stephen Lendman | February 5, 2022

Since seasonal flu was renamed covid over two years ago, medical tyranny became the new abnormal on thousands of US college and university campuses nationwide.

Rights guaranteed by international and US constitutional law no longer apply.

Health and freedom-destroying mandates replaced them.

The higher education experience I enjoyed long ago is gone since medical tyranny took over.

Yalies are enduring some of the worst of what no one should tolerate under virtual surveillance state standards.

A university hotline was established to make “confidential (snitching) reports.”

It largely relates to assuring “compliance with (draconian flu/covid) health and safety standards” that harm and don’t protect.

According to your.yale.edu, it’s to enforce compliance with all things flu/covid to include:

Destruction of normal campus interactions by mandated social distancing.

The same goes for masking.

What Yale calls “personal protective equipment (sic)” risks potentially serious respiratory harm while providing nothing beneficial.

So-called “cleaning and disinfecting standards” are best achieved by old-fashioned soap, water and other good personal hygiene practices.

Yale’s hotline for snitching on non-compliers to any of the above and whatever else relates to flu/covid operates “24 hours a day, seven days a week, every day of the year.”

The Washington Free Beacon (WFB) discussed one example of how Yale’s surveillance state operates.

On a Saturday night at 9:30 PM, a student in what appeared to be a deserted campus library went maskless to relax.

Alone with no one around, there was no reason to wear what’s required by university rules when others are nearby.

Somebody spotted, filmed and reported him.

In response, he got the following Office of the Dean notice, saying:

“The Compact Review Committee (CRC) is reviewing a report that your conduct failed to meet the commitments you agreed to in the Yale Community Compact.”

“The CRC has received the enclosed report from Melanie Boyd, Dean of Student Affairs, Yale College (flu/covid) Health and Safety Leader…”

“You have until (24 hours from this notice to) provide the CRC with any relevant information you would like the Committee to consider in its evaluation.”

“(F)ailure to do so could lead to disciplinary action with the Yale College Executive Committee.”

“The CRC will review the matter and decide whether your conduct poses a risk to the health and safety of yourself or other community members.”

Days after receiving the above notice, he received the following reply:

The so-called CRC “determined that your conduct posed a risk to the health and safety of yourself or other community members (sic).”

“Should you continue to engage in behavior that violates the Yale Community Compact, you will be placed on Public Health Warning and may face more serious outcomes, including the removal of permission to be on campus.”

On the same evening that the reprimanded student went maskless with no one around him in a near-deserted campus library, “1,000 maskless students gathered for Yale’s annual holiday dinner,” the WFB reported.

A video of the event showed the maskless attendees.

Apparently unsnitched on or for whatever other reason(s), no disciplinary actions were reported.

According to what students told the WFB, “rules increasingly feel like overkill.”

Enforcing them is “spotty.”

So far, there’s been no “organized opposition.”

Mass surveillance state Yale discourages it.

What one unnamed student called “a silenced majority (reflects fear of) administrative consequences” for openly addressing what harms health and denies students the full academic experience they deserve.

Other colleges and universities instituted their own surveillance state practices.

Northwestern University with campuses in Evanston, IL and Chicago is one.

Harvard is another. “Speak up,” it urged!

“Simple. Anonymous. 24/7.”

“Keep Harvard a safe place to live, learn and work (sic)” — by making it unsafe and unfit for students, faculty and staff.

By imposing draconian health and freedom-destroying mandates.

At Yale, no official guidelines were published to explain what alleged offenses merit what punitive actions.

The same is likely true on other campuses with draconian rules in place.

Most important is that kill shots and all else flu/covid have nothing to do with protecting and preserving health.

They aim to destroy public health and what remains of fundamental freedoms.

We’ve been lied to and mass deceived for over two years.

For students, academic life as it should be is gone.

For working-age individuals required to be jabbed and masked et al, destroying health and freedom is a condition of employment where these draconian standards were implemented.

The same applies to where free access to other public places are restricted or otherwise impeded.

I mentioned the following once before in an earlier article:

What’s going on reminds me of a comic routine performed on television long ago by famed entertainer/tightwad-impersonating Jack Benny (1894 – 1974).

Approached by a thug impersonator and told “Your money or your life,” Benny responded:

“I’m thinking it over.”

There’s nothing to think over about draconian flu/covid mandates.

It’s crucial to shun what’s designed to destroy health and freedom — on the phony pretext of providing protection not gotten.

February 5, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , | Leave a comment

Canadian trucker Freedom Convoy embraces GiveSendGo after GoFundMe censorship

By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | February 4, 2022

After having their fundraising efforts shut down by GoFundMe, the leaders of the Canadian trucker Freedom Convoy have switched to alternative platforms to fundraise and communicate with their supporters.

The Freedom Convoy, which has been traveling across Canada to protest vaccine mandates, has gained huge traction online and had raised over $10 million on GoFundMe. However, GoFundMe withheld the convoy’s funds twice and said that it’s “collaborating with local law enforcement” before permanently shutting down the campaign and refusing to pass on the millions of dollars that had been raised.

The shutdown of the campaign came days after a Canadian city council member had requested a lawsuit to seize GoFundMe funds raised by the Freedom Convoy.

Following these issues with GoFundMe, the Freedom Convoy launched a campaign on the alternative crowdfunding site GiveSendGo and has already raised tens of thousands of dollars. We have confirmed that this is the official campaign created by Tamara Lich who created the original campaign on GoFundMe.

While GoFundMe has removed multiple fundraisers from its platform, GiveSendGo has championed freedom of speech and platformed many fundraising campaigns that have been restricted by GoFundMe including those raising money for Kyle Rittenhouse and election investigations.

In addition to embracing GoFundMe, the organizers of the Freedom Convoy have also partnered with CloutHub to create a group for communicating with their supporters and set up a campaign page that contains quick links to the group and fundraising page.

“There is no more important movement for freedom across the American continent right now than the Freedom Convoy 2022,” CloutHub CEO Jeff Brain said. “We are proud to support the Canadian truckers and will help support the other trucker movements popping up around the world to fight against unlawful mandates. CloutHub is where the world connects and organizes to take on the issues they care about, including defending liberty and freedom.”

CloutHub, which had direct experience of Big Tech censorship when it was deplatformed by IBM in 2020, offers users an alternative platform that focuses on bringing people together and empowering them to connect and solve issues that they care about. It has also encouraged lawmakers to pursue laws that limit the power of Big Tech.

The GiveSendGo campaign can be found here. The page may be slow as it deals with heavy demand.

 

February 5, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Solidarity and Activism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »