Aletho News


Columbia Journalism Review Russiagate Post-Mortem Is a Good Start

By Mark Hemingway | RealClearWire | February 6, 2023

Without much fanfare, earlier this week Jeff Gerth, a Pulitzer-Prize winning former New York Times investigative reporter, dropped a thorough and damning four-part article dissecting the media’s obsessive reporting on Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia. Even more surprising, Gerth’s report, “The press versus the president,” appeared at the in-house organ of America’s most prestigious journalism school, Columbia Journalism Review, which has long been regarded as something of an unofficial ombudsman for the media industry.

If CJR is finally comfortable admitting that the media’s Russiagate reporting was so scandalously bad that it damns the entire industry, that seems like a remarkable admission.

On Twitter, Glenn Greenwald, a left-leaning reporter who made some significant career sacrifices for calling out the media’s bogus reporting on this topic, declared Gerth’s reporting “absolutely devastating on how casually, frequently, recklessly and eagerly the press lied on Russiagate.” Gerth lays out what happened so clearly that it’s hard to imagine fair-minded readers who make it through all 24,000 words of Gerth’s report would conclude any differently. Personally, I’m proud to say that the work of RealClearInvestigations – and my colleagues there, Tom Kuntz, Aaron Mate, and Paul Sperry – are all cited favorably by Gerth as one of the few media outlets that consistently got the story right.

However, as someone who spent much of his time during the Trump years engaged in substantive reporting that questioned and debunked the Russia collusion narrative, my reaction was, well, anger. It’s an emotion not directed at Gerth, who has done courageous work. But the fact that this piece is appearing two years after Trump left office and nearly five years after special prosecutor Robert Mueller failed to substantiate years of anonymously sourced speculation about Russia collusion is a searing indictment in itself.

To start, Gerth demonstrates the media still won’t grapple with the truth. His piece is peppered with big-name reporters and major publications refusing to comment on basic errors or dubious or unethical judgments. Gerth did manage to get Bob Woodward, the dashboard saint of journalism, on the record condemning the media’s failures here. While that’s a notable concession, if respected figures such as Woodward harbored doubts about the media’s conduct, they should have been a lot more vocal – and much earlier.

It’s also understandable why Gerth would want to keep his report narrowly focused on the facts of what transpired. But without any substantive discussion of the media’s motives it’s hard to draw any important lessons from this sorry saga. Gerth does point out that Russiagate has led to an erosion of trust in the media and offers a pallid warning that the media’s “failure will almost certainly shape the coverage of what lies ahead.”

But this is inadequate. Devoid of any broader context about the long history manipulations of America’s national security state or the corporate media’s evolution into ham-fisted left-wing ideologues, one can read Gerth’s dry reporting as a comedy of errors: A bunch of well-intentioned reporters, faced with the challenge of covering a problematic president – and disingenuous Democrats and partisan law enforcement officials – kept bungling the reporting, by getting key facts wrong  and committing serious sins of omission.

However, the missing motive suggests something far more sinister. The media’s Russiagate coverage hinged on being extremely trusting of officials in national security and law enforcement agencies that have historically undermined the press and been hostile to civil rights. There’s a saying in traditional journalism – “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” Yet, when “deep state” actors with an obvious animus for Donald Trump pushed the narrative that a sitting U.S. president was compromised by a foreign power, a story so explosive it demanded to be thoroughly vetted every step of the way, the mainstream media instead decided to become stenographers.

The blizzard of details necessary to explain the Russia collusion story might also make it seem like discerning the truth was more difficult than it was. If your willingness to believe that Trump was compromised by Russia started out as a political Rorschach test, it quickly became an IQ exam.

Starting before Trump was even inaugurated in January 2017, it was reported that the Logan Act was being used as a predicate to investigate Trump’s incoming national security adviser, Michael Flynn. The Logan Act is to national security laws what phrenology is to medical science – it’s a never-enforced 1799 statute that says it’s illegal for private citizens to negotiate with foreign governments. Laughed at by constitutional scholars, it’s routinely violated and invariably ignored.

Except that several major media outlets credulously reported on Flynn’s alleged Logan Act violations as if they were a potentially serious transgressions, when it should have been obvious that invoking this ancient and discredited statute was a desperate attempt to justify a politically motivated investigation. What happened to Flynn is just one example out of many where the press inexcusably disregarded glaring truths.

Gerth, to his credit, does a fine job unpacking the story of how Flynn was railroaded by the Justice Department, as well as the absurd credulity of the press regarding the so-called “dossier” on Trump, an obviously untrustworthy document produced by partisan political enemies of the president. Nonetheless, most of Gerth’s examples of questionable interactions between the press and government sources require reading between the lines to assess just how willfully blind the press was to the possibility of law enforcement officials abusing their power.

And given that the key players of the story were Democratic partisans, current and former spies, and shady opposition researchers, it’s also worth asking to what extent the press was being overtly manipulated and deliberately fed bad information. Although Gerth’s reporting suggests a conscious conspiracy, he doesn’t really go there.

Finally, no accounting of the media’s faulty Russia reporting would be complete without seriously evaluating the consequences. Once again, much of this discussion is outside Gerth’s narrower focus on how the sausage was being made in newsrooms. However, he gets close to identifying the gravity of the problem when he notes a fateful coincidence. The FBI’s dubious White House briefing to Trump and Obama on the dossier’s absurd allegations involving Trump and Moscow prostitutes – a made-up event that was promptly leaked to CNN, catalyzing the Russiagate hysteria – occurred on Jan. 6, 2017, four years to the day before the infamous riot at the U.S. Capitol.

These two events aren’t unrelated. Obsessively gaslighting tens of millions of Trump voters with a transparently false narrative that the president was a traitor who pundits openly agitated to remove from office didn’t just badly erode trust in the media. It also made it impossible for the media to summon the institutional trust necessary to persuade Trump supporters – and Trump himself – that Joe Biden’s narrow 2020 election victory was legitimate.

The result is that the shoddy reporting during Trump’s presidency contributed heavily to the frenzied and distrustful atmosphere that undermined Americans’ faith in elections, shook the very foundations of the Republic, and has left us all worried about political stability in the future.

So while Gerth’s careful reporting is noted and appreciated, it is unlikely to produce the kind of self-examination and reckoning necessary to restore trust in the media and the vital role they play in the democratic process. By getting away with it, the media learned all the wrong lessons. My fear is that when asked about the media’s colossal failures in the Trump years, Gerth’s article will be used an excuse instead of an indictment. The members of the press still seeking to dodge accountability will simply be able to point to his article and say, “It’s old news.”

February 6, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia, Timeless or most popular | | 2 Comments

A worldwide call for data transparency: Show us the data!

By Steve Kirsch | February 3, 2023

We could end the debate on COVID vaccine safety instantly. All we need is the death-vax record data. But today, that data is being concealed by the health authorities in every jurisdiction. Here’s why.

Executive summary

A simple database of death-vax records should be made publicly available by the CDC and other health authorities worldwide.

The death-vax records can be analyzed in seconds using a variety of totally objective methods to show whether the COVID vaccines have increased or decreased all-cause mortality in each age range.

No medical records, cause of death, etc. are required or needed. Just the age, date of death, and dates of vaccination are all that is required for each death since the start of the COVID vaccination program.

The death-vax data has been collected, but it has never been made publicly available anywhere in the world. There is no PII or HIPAA violation by disclosing the records.

There is absolutely no excuse for this data not to be made PUBLICLY available now.

Because kids are most at risk, universities in particular should be demanding data transparency of the death-vax records.

It is immoral and unethical for universities to mandate COVID vaccines if the health authorities refuse to show us the death-vax database records that would justify their use.

The death-vax record data

The death-vax data consists of one record for each death since Dec 14, 2020 to the present with these columns:

  • Age
  • Date of death
  • Date of each COVID vaccine administered (blank if unvaccinated)

That’s it.

Does that sound like too much to ask for?


  • Manufacturer of each dose (blank if unvaccinated)
  • State (e.g., California)

In the US, the death data is already collected by the CDC for the entire country. The immunization data is available from each state.

The CDC could quickly collect this information, do the database join, remove the PII fields, and make this database publicly available.

This would reveal to the entire world whether the vaccines are safe or not. Instantly. No more debates.

No medical records are required. No judgment is required. The analysis is all based on mathematics and the law of large numbers. If the vaccines are saving lives, we’ll know it. If the vaccines are killing people, we’ll know it.


EVERYONE should be demanding to see the death-vax record-level data. It can be easily compiled. It is dispositive. We’d know instantly whether the vaccines are safe or not. No more arguments. No more debates. No more censorship. One and done.

Yet, nobody in the mainstream infectious disease or epidemiology community seems to care about seeing this data. Nobody is calling for it. Why is that? Are they afraid of being proven they are wrong?

If the vaccine is so safe, they should be shouting for the release of this data from the rooftops because nearly 80% of the public is no longer drinking the Kool-Aid:

But the authorities are remaining silent and keeping the data under wraps. That can only mean one thing: the data is horrible and they know it. That’s why they are hiding it from public view.

That’s not just a hunch. I did my own data collection and analysis. Even after adjusting for the bias of the reporters (by restricting the analysis to just parents and grandparents of the reporter), the signal of harm was huge.

Science used to be about data. Not anymore.

Science used to be about data and what the data shows. Sadly, today, science is about what the CDC says, even if there is no data in support of the recommendation whatsoever.

The most stunning example of this is the “six foot rule.” Did you know that it was entirely fabricated out of thin air? From Presidential Takedown page 49:

What is even more stunning is that the CDC has never admitted this publicly. This is evidence that they are a corrupt organization and the corruption goes to the very top of the organization.

We have over two years of data. Why not make it public?

We now have over two years worth of death and vaccination data for people who died after getting a COVID shot, yet nobody wants to see the record level data tied to the vaccination dates?!?!

Let me be perfectly clear:

This is an abject failure of the entire medical community for not demanding to see this data.

People paid for us to see this data with their lives. Why is it being hidden from us?

In the US, hundreds of millions of people participated in a massive clinical trial and have data to share with people. At least 500,000 of the participants paid the ultimate price: they sacrificed their lives to send a message to America about the vaccines. It is extremely disrespectful to these people to ignore their death data and not share it with the public. Why are we not allowing these people to share their data?

Do you think if we could ask those people right before they died, “Do you want to let others know what killed you?” Do you think they would all say, “No! Don’t let anyone know. Please keep it a secret!”?

Every institution in the world that is recommending or requiring COVID vaccination should be DEMANDING to see this data made public

John Beaudoin and I have been calling for the death data to be set free and made public. We have been ignored.

Why aren’t any of these organizations calling for data transparency here so we can learn the truth?

  1. The mainstream medical community
  2. Heads of state throughout the world
  3. The CDC
  4. The FDA
  5. The White House
  6. Congress
  7. The mainstream media
  8. Public health authorities
  9. Any doctor or nurse who recommends the jab to patients
  10. Universities who mandate the vaccines for students, staff, or faculty
  11. Any organization that supports COVID vaccines for their members, employees, or visitors

The data exists in VSD as well. But the CDC won’t allow anyone to see it.

The data exists in every state health department. But you can’t FOIA it because it requires a join to avoid PII problems and FOIA requests are not allowed if they generate effort like that. So FOIA requests won’t work.

It’s time for everyone to demand that our health authorities “Show us the data!”

We should all refuse to comply until they produce it.

Do you remember the movie Jerry Maguire?

Who could ever forget the classic “Show me the money!” scene from the movie Jerry Maguire?

In the same way Tom Cruise said passionately “Show me the money,” everyone all over the world should be equally passionate with their doctors and healthcare authorities and demand: “Show me the DATA” before we agree to comply with their requests/demands regarding vaccination.

Civil disobedience in Canada

Check out this video from True North entitled “Show us the data and evidence” that described the civil disobedience in Canada:

Business owners and local politicians are pushing back against the government’s lockdown measures. Their ask of the government is simple – if you’re going to shut us down, show us the data and evidence.

Calling all parents: ask your school why they aren’t calling for the data to be produced

The data that we have shows that the biggest harm is being done to kids.

Therefore, the biggest urgency is to put pressure on any school or university that recommends or requires the COVID vaccines to drop it immediately

Please ask the university president or head of school at any school your child attends to contact the CDC and let them know that if the CDC doesn’t make the death-vax record level data publicly available with the next 30 days, that the school will suspend their COVID vaccination policies until such time as this data is produced and scientists can analyze it. That is the only ethical thing to do.

You can refer to my article in your email.

The public health authorities have been voluntarily keeping the data secret for two years now. That data would end the debate. We should not let them continue to get away with it.

February 6, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | 1 Comment

Is the FDA “doubling down” on a failed strategy?

By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | January 30, 2023

Last Thursday, the FDA convened its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) to discuss the future of covid vaccines.

The panel voted 21 to 0 in favour of moving towards a more simplified vaccine schedule – an annual shot which would be updated as new variants emerge – much like the annual flu shot.

Despite the unanimous vote, VRBPAC members did raise concerns about knowledge gaps and questioned the need to boost everyone, as well as the futility of chasing rapidly mutating viruses.

But it all fizzled out quickly, and the FDA promised to reconvene in May or June to discuss the data further.

That said, I had some interesting observations of my own.

Still no correlate of protection

We are three years into the pandemic, and the FDA has still not established a “correlate of protection” for the vaccines.

Eight covid-19 vaccine emergency use authorisations (EUAs)* have been granted, based on their ability to induce “neutralising antibodies,” a surrogate marker of protection.

The idea is, the more antibodies you produce, the better you are protected.

Except, neutralising antibodies do not predict the degree to which someone is protected from infection… and the FDA knows it.

Ofer Levy, VRBPAC member and Professor of Paediatrics at Boston Children’s Hospital first voiced his concern at the April 6, 2022 meeting.

“We’re at risk of doubling down on a failed strategy,” said Levy as the committee discussed a framework for offering annual covid shots for Americans.

“Where is the federal effort to coordinate all of that to develop a public repository around the correlate of protection, and to make sure we have the best available data for the immunogenicity when we make those decisions?”

The FDA’s top vaccine official, Peter Marks, agreed with Levy.

“There is not a clear, perfect, immune correlate of protection” admitted Marks, “We’re using poor man’s immune correlates of protection here — or poor person’s immune correlates of protection with antibody levels.”

In Dec 2022, Peter Marks reiterated these concerns in an article published in JAMA. He and his co-authors wrote:

“Therefore, unless correlates of protection that are strongly associated with duration of protection against COVID-19 can be identified, it is likely that rather than relying on immunobridging to infer vaccine effectiveness, large randomized clinical trials similar to the initial trials of the currently authorized or licensed vaccines for COVID-19 will be required to ascertain the effectiveness of these new vaccines.”

But fast forward to this latest meeting, and it becomes clear that we’re all still in the dark.

We have no correlate of protection, the FDA is relying heavily on real world studies (confounded data) and the agency still has not demanded any randomised controlled trials to show the bivalent booster can reduce severe disease or hospitalisations.

It’s no wonder doctors are coming out in droves, refusing to have any more covid shots until the FDA demands better studies.

“I don’t think we can say with credibility what the objective benefits are for someone like me to take an additional dose, nor what the rate of any rare but important side effects would be,” tweeted Todd Lee, a physician certified in Infectious Diseases and General Internal Medicine in Quebec, Canada.

Similarly, Vinay Prasad, haematologist-oncologist at the University of California San Francisco vowed not to take any more shots until there were data from randomised controlled trials.

“I took at least 1 dose against my will. It was unethical and scientifically bankrupt. I am not done with that error. No more,” he tweeted.

No update on subclinical myocarditis

As part of its post-marketing requirements, Pfizer is legally obligated to conduct a study involving people aged 16 to 30 to look at rates of subclinical myocarditis (i.e. underlying damage to the heart muscle without causing symptoms).

The final report was due 31 Dec 2022, but that deadline lapsed, and the FDA said nothing.  There was no mention of the study, neither in the briefing notes ahead of the VRBPAC meeting, or during the meeting.

I asked the FDA directly for access to Pfizer’s study, but the agency said in an email, “You may submit a FOIA request for this information, or if you would like it more quickly, you can reach out to the manufacturer directly.”

Pfizer did not respond to my request, and the FDA refused to confirm whether it had even received Pfizer’s study, before abruptly ending our communication.

Jessica Adams, an expert in drug regulatory affairs pointed out on twitter that the FDA had quietly changed the due date for the study from 31 Dec 2022 to 30 June 2023.

So, now as it stands, millions of young people will receive boosters, mandated or not, without knowing if the vaccine is causing subclinical myocarditis.

FDA still working from home

Finally, the meeting was again held online because the majority of FDA employees are still working from home.

Since all federal employees have been mandated to take the covid-19 vaccine to “protect themselves and those around them,” why aren’t they conducting face-to-face meetings?

“FDA leaders are in a bubble. How much longer will the FDA (18,000-employees) continue to work remotely? It’s mid-day on a weekday and the parking lot is essentially empty” tweeted Marty Makary, surgeon and public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University.

“The FDA was telling the rest of America to get vaccinated, mask up and go back to work, but the FDA mysteriously did not follow its own advice,” said David Gortler, drug safety expert and former senior advisor to the FDA commissioner.

Well, it’s as though the FDA heard the cries.

Today, the FDA announced that “staff will be transitioning to a hybrid workplace.” This transition will enable face-to-face formal meetings between FDA and industry to resume within weeks.

*FDA issued eight EUAs based on neutralising antibodies (immunobridging studies) – an unproven correlate of protection.

February 6, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

How to nullify criticism of the vaccines

A World Health Organisation guide

Health Advisory & Recovery Team | February 1, 2023

At a time when concerns about serious adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines are escalating, one might reasonably expect the World Health Organisation (WHO) – a specialised agency of the United Nations responsible for international public health – to take immediate and decisive action. Perhaps a recommendation to pause the vaccine rollout would be a reasonable step under the circumstances. Or maybe an urgent request to member states to rapidly undertake thorough investigations of the links between the mRNA vaccines and serious physical harms, such as myocarditis. But no, those responses have not been forthcoming. Instead, the WHO has published communication guidance on how to nullify criticism of the vaccines.

The document, titled Vaccine Crisis Communication Manual – a step-by-step guidance for national immunization programmes, was produced in 2022 by the WHO European office with the stated aim of supporting countries ‘in effectively responding to events which may erode the public’s trust in vaccines and authorities that deliver them. The manual offers detailed recommendations about how those in authority should respond to a ‘vaccine crisis’ (defined as any occurrence that ‘will most likely or has already eroded public trust in vaccines … and may create uncertainty’). The explicit, overarching goal is to ‘rebuild trust in vaccines’.

The guidance is structured – with military precision – around four sequential phases:

1.  Co-ordinate & engage

2.  Design communication response

3.  Monitor public opinion & the media

4.  Inform the public

In keeping with the dominant narrative during the Covid era, the presumption is that vaccinations are always for the greater good. Repeatedly asserted throughout the document is that adverse events may not be causally linked to the jabs. Pre-prepared messages are recommended that ‘emphasize the value of immunization based on a risk-benefit analysis’. Somewhat sinisterly, public health officials are advised to ‘use existing or implement new monitoring tools to monitor public opinion’ and to maintain ‘good relations with key journalists and the media’. And when someone dies in the aftermath of vaccination, communicators are directed to say, ‘We are committing all available resources to the investigation of this unfortunate incident and are doing our utmost to find the cause as soon as possible’; (it is doubtful whether the vaccine-harmed population would concur with this claim). Clearly, the overarching goal of this WHO manuscript is to protect the pro-vaccine narrative under any circumstances.

The tone of this WHO document perpetuates the myth that anyone questioning the net benefits of the jabs is an ‘anti-vaxxer’ who is spreading misinformation. One illustrative example is the reference to an earlier – 2017 – WHO publication, titled ‘How to respond to vocal vaccine deniers in public’.  Co-authored by Katrine Habersaat (who is also a co-author of the WHO, 2022, document) the article refers to these ‘vaccine deniers’ as people who have ‘a very negative attitude towards vaccination and are not open to a change of mind no matter the scientific evidence’. According to Habersaat, these agitators ‘censor opposing opinions’ and ‘use personal insults or even legal actions to silence representatives of the scientific consensus’. In light of the widespread vilification and censorship endured by those experts who have, over the last three years, challenged the dominant Covid narrative, the irony of these assertions is off the scale.

There was once a time when the primary aim of the WHO was the provision of accessible and holistic healthcare to all, regardless of socioeconomic status. The content of this Vaccine Crisis Communication Manual provides further evidence that this is no longer the case. The welfare of ordinary people is not the WHO’s priority; the appeasement of their pro-vaccine paymasters now takes precedence.

February 6, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | 1 Comment

Vitamin D Cuts COVID-19 Risk of Death in Half, New Study Finds. So Why Isn’t it Recommended?


Vitamin D cuts the risk of death from COVID-19 by 51% and the risk of ICU admission by 72%, a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials has found. The new study, published in Pharmaceuticals, is titled “Protective Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation on COVID-19-Related Intensive Care Hospitalisation and Mortality: Definitive Evidence from Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis”. Here’s the abstract, summarising the study’s method and results.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic represents one of the world’s most important challenges for global public healthcare. Various studies have found an association between severe vitamin D deficiency and COVID-19-related outcomes. Vitamin D plays a crucial role in immune function and inflammation. Recent data have suggested a protective role of vitamin D in COVID-19-related health outcomes. The purpose of this meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) was to better explain the strength of the association between the protective role of vitamin D supplementation and the risk of mortality and admission to intensive care units (ICUs) in patients with COVID-19.

Methods: We searched four databases on September 20th 2022. Two reviewers screened the randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and assessed the risk of bias, independently and in duplicate. The pre-specified outcomes of interest were mortality and ICU admission.

Results: We identified 78 bibliographic citations. After the reviewers’ screening, only five RCTs were found to be suitable for our analysis. We performed meta-analyses and then TSAs. Vitamin D administration results in a decreased risk of death and ICU admission (standardised mean difference (95% CI): 0.49 (0.34–0.72) and 0.28 (0.20–0.39), respectively). The TSA of the protective role of vitamin D and ICU admission showed that, since the pooling of the studies reached a definite sample size, the positive association is conclusive. The TSA of the protective role of vitamin D in mortality risk showed that the z-curve was inside the alpha boundaries, indicating that the positive results need further studies.

Discussion: The results of the meta-analyses and respective TSAs suggest a definitive association between the protective role of vitamin D and ICU hospitalisation.

Despite these highly positive results, the latest official guidelines from NICE still state that vitamin D is not recommended for the prevention of COVID-19. (NICE also doesn’t recommend the use of ivermectin or budesonide.) Yet remdesivir is recommended despite the WHO finding little or no effect. Will NICE now update its guidelines? I wouldn’t count on it.

Dr. John Campbell discusses the new study in a recent video, arguing the evidence on vitamin D is now conclusive and wondering why adequate vitamin D supplementation is not being officially promoted in the U.K. The fact that the MHRA is 86% industry-funded may have something to do with it, he suggests.

February 6, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | 1 Comment

Health chiefs admit vaccine link to heart and kidney damage – and the MSM say nothing

By Guy Hatchard | TCW Defending Freedom | February 1, 2023

A preprint paper has just been published in the Lancet authored by the New Zealand Ministry of Health, ‘Adverse Events Following the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine (Pfizer-BioNtech) in Aotearoa New Zealand’. The paper reveals that there is a statistically significant association between Pfizer mRNA vaccination and both myocarditis and acute kidney injury (AKI). Here in little New Zealand, you wouldn’t know it though. MSM has not covered it, anywhere.

AKI, also known as acute renal failure (ARF), is an episode of kidney failure or damage which happens within a few hours or days. It causes a build-up of waste products in the blood and makes it hard for the kidneys to keep the right balance of fluid in the body. AKI can affect other organs such as the brain, heart and lungs.

The study examined the comprehensive medical records of 4million people. There were 1,778 more cases of AKI than predicted from historical pre-pandemic rates – an alarming incidence of one case for every 2,200 vaccinations. In addition to AKI and myocarditis, researchers also found elevated rates of blood clots and platelet damage. The finding of AKI is new and concerning, but incredibly the study concludes that its findings provide assurances about the safety of mRNA vaccines. How could they say that? I am not reassured, I am alarmed – and so should you be.

The study compared the background rates of 12 adverse events of special interest (AESI) with their incidence following Covid-19 vaccination. The study included only events that occurred within 21 days after Covid vaccination which resulted in hospitalisation. Therefore the study specifically ruled out effects of Covid vaccination resulting in hospitalisation or death any time after 21 days and also discounted adverse events for which those affected did not immediately seek hospital treatment.

Was this a credible cut-off point? No. Studies have detected markedly elevated levels of full-length spike protein, unbound by antibodies, in the plasma of individuals post-vaccine which can persist well beyond 21 days. For example see here. This indicates that injected mRNA sequences can actively produce spike protein for extended periods. Spike protein is known to be associated with the development of myocarditis for example and is believed to have toxic effects on other organs including the liver.

Was the hospitalisation data a completely reliable measure of the extent of the effects? No, absolutely not. We are a small country and we talk to one another. Multiple people have publicly reported presenting to hospital with concerning symptoms following mRNA vaccination such as tachycardia, chest pains or neurological dysfunction, and being sent home without any investigative tests and a diagnosis of ‘vaccine anxiety’ and an ibuprofen prescription. My daughter-in-law was one of these. My neighbour developed a kidney injury subsequent to vaccination but didn’t report it to a doctor for weeks. She now has difficulty digesting most foods.

GPs and hospital staff have been deliberately manipulated by government propaganda into believing that the mRNA vaccine is safe. GPs who advised their patients that there were risks associated with the jab were told they might be struck off if they persisted – some actually were.

The NZ Ministry of Health did not warn district health boards of the risk of myocarditis until mid-December 2021, near the end of the period covered by the study. This MoH advice described vaccine-induced myocarditis as rare and generally mild. Prior to this there was an obvious incentive to disbelieve and dismiss patients reporting cardiac symptoms. Because GPs were afraid to make any association between the jabs and health conditions, they were also disincentivised to order tests or advise hospitalisation.

There has been no general advice of the risk of renal failure post mRNA vaccination. My local school received a visit from a GP informing staff and students that there were no safety issues with the vaccine and that it had been rigorously tested for over 30 years, a downright lie. As a result, a teacher friend with persistent chest pains had no idea it might be connected with vaccination and did not seek medical help until he unburdened himself to me.

When Jacinda Ardern wrote on her Facebook page that people could comment on adverse effects, expecting a few replies about mild discomfort, 33,000 comments were posted within a matter of hours. Ardern’s staff famously stayed up all night to delete them. As of November 2022, the government has acknowledged only two deaths associated with mRNA vaccination. There are persistent third-party reports circulating that the Ministry of Health made some payments to families whose children died following vaccination on condition that they would not make public comments. As a result, these reports cannot be reliably confirmed or ruled out. If true, possibly these were aimed at reducing vaccine hesitancy among the young.

A concerning issue here is the attitude of the media to reports of vaccine injury. They are ignoring them. Even published studies such as this one are receiving no attention whatsoever. MSM appears to have relinquished its investigative role, leaving the public in the dark.

It is clear that detailed knowledge of adverse effects of mRNA vaccines would enable GPs and hospital staff to deal appropriately and sympathetically with injury. It would also enable doctors and medical staff to relay factual informed consent to patients. This has not happened.

So how far are reporting errors and the 21-day cut-off skewing the authors’ invalid conclusions of vaccine safety? How can we find out? We currently have record rates of excess all-cause mortality, but despite having the data to do so, the MoH has not undertaken any investigation to determine if there is any correlation between all-cause deaths and vaccine status. This simple procedure would settle any controversy, but a mistaken faith in vaccine efficacy has prompted MoH investigators to turn a blind eye to the obvious.

This is exactly the same obfuscation, hiding of data and failure to investigate that governments have promoted around the world. UK Health Minister Maria Caulfield in the House of Commons brushed aside concerns about, and investigation of, excess deaths as if rapidly rising death rates are an entirely ordinary and uninteresting feature of post-pandemic life. Similar requests put to the Minister of Health in New Zealand have been met with silence. Facts don’t count for much when it comes to modern democracy.

February 6, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Russian FM: US playing with fire, encouraging separatism in Kurdish region in Syria

Press TV – February 6, 2023

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says the United States is “playing with fire” with its activities on the common border between Iraq and Syria, especially by backing separatist militants affiliated with the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and encouraging separatism.

Lavrov said at a press conference in Baghdad with his Iraqi counterpart, Fuad Hussein, that Washington “fosters separatism among locals of Kurdish-populated regions in Iraq and Syria. It is playing with fire.”

He added, “Americans encourage Kurdish separatism one way or another and ignore other matters, including the territorial integrity of Syria, warning that such an approach “exposes other countries in the region to ensuing dangers and threats.”

Security conditions have been deteriorating in the areas controlled by the US-led SDF in Syria’s northern and northeastern provinces of Raqqah, Hasakah, and Dayr al-Zawr amid ongoing raids and arrests of civilians by the US-sponsored militants.

Locals argue that SDF’s constant raids and arrest campaigns have generated a state of frustration and instability, severely affecting their businesses and livelihoods.

Residents accuse the US-backed militants of stealing crude oil and failing to spend money on service sectors.

Local councils affiliated with the SDF have also been accused of financial corruption. They are said to be embezzling funds provided by donors, neglecting services, and not meeting the basic needs.

The Russian foreign minister went on to note that Moscow continues to work on negotiations within the Astana format for the peaceful settlement of Syria conflict, and regards the peace talks as useful.

“We consider Iraq’s observer status at the Astana talks, with Iran, Russia and Turkey acting as the guarantor states, to be very useful. We will continue our interactions and welcome participation of Iraq as an observer. Jordan and Lebanon also play the same role,” Lavrov said.

The Russian foreign minister went on to speak of a “vital importance” to “safeguard” bilateral economic ties with Iraq against “illegal sanctions” imposed on his country by the United States and its allies due to the conflict in Ukraine.

Lavrov said Russia had already invested some $13 billion in Iraq, arguing that Russian oil companies have not received outstanding payments because of the West’s coercive measures.

Elsewhere in his remarks, the top Russian diplomat underlined the importance of the Palestinian issue, saying that the West is procrastinating resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Hussein, for his part, termed Lavrov’s visit to Iraq as a remarkable development, stressing that Baghdad and Moscow will discuss problems linked to the work of Russian companies and Russian financial dues in the Arab country through meetings of the joint committee between the two sides.

The Iraqi foreign minister said he would discuss the issue of cooperating with Russian companies during an upcoming visit to the US.

Hussein said he would insist the US should refrain from imposing sanctions on Iraqi companies for working with Russian partners in Iraq.

He also touched on the Ukraine crisis, stating that Iraq demands a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, and calls for an end to the crisis through sincere dialogue between the two countries.

February 6, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Illegal Occupation | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sales Collapse At Beyond Meat, Impossible Foods As 20% Of Staff Laid Off

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | February 5, 2023

The fake meat industry appears to be in a death-spiral as sales at plant-based ‘meat’ companies Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat have imploded.

As Axios reports, “after years of hype, the tide is turning against the first generation of plant-based protein makers.”

Last year, both companies were riding high – with prime placement on supermarket shelves, and Burger King even adding an Impossible Whopper to its menu.

Impossible Meat even began to branch out – looking to expand offerings to highly processed meats such as chicken nuggets and sausages.

Sales have collapsed, however, which according to a recent Bloomberg report, has resulted in Impossible Foods planning to lay off around 20% of its workers.

Impossible Foods Inc., the maker of meatless burgers and sausages, is preparing to cut about 20% of its staff, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The Redwood City, California-based company currently employs about 700 workers. The new round of dismissals could reduce that amount by more than 100. 

Impossible Foods also offered voluntary separation payments and benefits to employees at the end of 2022, said the person, who asked not to be named discussing private information. An internal document viewed by Bloomberg confirmed the separation packages being offered. The company previously reduced headcount in October, cutting about 6% of its workforce at the time. – Bloomberg

Beyond Meat’s sales fell over 22% in the third quarter of 2022, as the company is preparing to similarly cut 20% of its workers. The company has also lost several executives.

According to the report, supermarket sales fell by 15% y/y as of Jan. 1, according to market-research firm IRI, while orders in restaurants dropped 9% in the12 months ended in November, according to NPD Group.

Meanwhile, data from consumer-experience strategy firm HundredX suggests waning interest in general – as the percentage of shoppers polled who have eaten Impossible products and say they won’t do it again has risen.

Beyond Meat stock is also down around 67% vs. one year ago.

February 6, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | 2 Comments

The Maidan sniper killings were pivotal for the 2014 Kiev coup – why is research into the massacre being censored in the West?

By Felix Livshitz | RT | February 6, 2023

Political scientist Ivan Katchanovski – of the University of Ottawa – has revealed that a paper he produced outlining evidence that the February 2014 massacre of Ukrainian protesters by sniper fire, a defining moment of the Western-backed Maidan coup, was not published by an academic journal for “political reasons.”

‘The evidence is solid’

In a lengthy Twitter thread posted on January 6, Katchanovski first laid out the circumstances behind the rejection of his article, and the bombshell evidence included in it. The paper was initially accepted with minor revisions after peer review, and the journal’s editor offered a glowing appraisal of his work, writing:

“There is no doubt that this paper is exceptional in many ways. It offers evidence against the mainstream narrative of the regime change in Ukraine in 2014… It seems to me that the evidence the study produces in favour of its interpretation on who was behind the massacre of the protesters and the police during the ‘Euromaidan’ mass protests on February 18-20, 2014, in Ukraine, is solid. On this there is also consensus among the two reviewers.”

As the editor noted, the massacre was a “politically crucial development,” which led to the “transition of powers in the country” from the freely elected Viktor Yanukovich to the illegitimate and rabidly nationalistic administration of Aleksandr Turchinov, a former security services chief. It was endlessly cited in Western media as a symbol of the brutality of Ukraine’s government and an unprovoked attack on innocent pro-Western Maidan protesters, who allegedly sought nothing more than democracy and freedom.

Rumors that the killings were a false flag intended to inflame tensions among the vast crowds filling Maidan, and provoke violence against the authorities, began circulating immediately.

No serious investigation into what happened was ever conducted by the Western media, with all claims that the sniper attacks were an inside job dismissed as Kremlin “disinformation.” However, even NATO’s Atlantic Council adjunct admitted in 2020 that the massacre was unsolved and that this “cast a shadow over Ukraine.”

Ask the witnesses

It may not remain unsolved for much longer though, due to an ongoing trial of policemen at the scene on the fateful day. The legal action has been unfolding for well over a year and has received no mainstream news attention at all outside Ukraine. Katchanovski drew heavily on witness testimony and video evidence that has emerged over the course of the trial in his suppressed paper.

For example, 51 protesters wounded during the incident testified at the trial that they were shot by snipers from Maidan-controlled buildings, and/or witnessed snipers there. Many spoke of snipers in buildings controlled by Maidan protesters shooting at police. This is consistent with other evidence collected by Katchanovski, such as 14 separate videos of snipers in protester-controlled buildings, 10 of which clearly feature far-right gunmen in the Hotel Ukraina aiming at crowds below.

In all, 300 witnesses have told much the same story. Synchronized videos show that the specific time and direction of shots fired by the police not only didn’t coincide with the killings of specific Maidan protesters, but that authorities aimed at walls, trees, lampposts, and even the ground, simply to disperse crowds.

Among those targeted by apparently Maidan-aligned snipers were journalists at Germany’s ARD. They weren’t the only Western news station in town at the time – so too were Belgian reporters, who not only filmed Maidan protesters screaming towards Hotel Ukraina for snipers not to shoot them, but also participants being actively lured to the killing zone. This incendiary footage was never broadcast.

CNN likewise filmed far-right elements firing at police from behind Maidan barricades, then hunting for positions to shoot from the 11th floor of the Hotel Ukraina, minutes before the BBC filmed snipers shooting protesters from a room where a far-right MP was staying. The network opted not to report this at the time.

We needn’t rely purely on video footage. Over the course of the trial, no fewer than 14 self-confessed members of Maidan sniper groups testified they had explicitly received massacre orders, Katchanovski claims. By contrast, no police officer at the scene has said they were directed to kill unarmed protesters, no minister has come forward to blow the whistle on such a scheme, and no evidence Yanukovich approved of the killings has ever emerged.

Separate from the trial, leaders of the far-right Svoboda party have openly stated that Western government representatives expressly told them before the massacre that they would start calling for Yanukovich’s ouster once casualties among protesters reached a certain number. This figure was even actively discussed by both sides – were five enough, or 20? Or even 100? The latter was the final total reported, and indeed led to calls for the Ukrainian government’s abdication.

Katchanovski previously published a landmark study on the Maidan massacre in 2021, which has been referenced over 100 times by scholars and experts, already making him one of most cited political scientists specializing in Ukraine, according to Google Scholar.

Whatever the nature and source of the political pressure applied to the journal that led to the censoring of the dynamite paper, the move may well backfire massively, in the spirit of the Streisand Effect. Indeed, it could help the truth of what happened on those deadly days come out, and assist in those responsible for the killings being brought to justice.

It should also prompt a wider reconsideration of the nature of Maidan too, and the government it produced. The banning of opposition parties, attacks on the Orthodox Church, the closure of dissident media outlets, and the war on Russian culture and language are all consequences.

February 6, 2023 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | 1 Comment

Ukraine accused of chemical warfare

RT | February 6, 2023

Russian military commanders are reporting that Ukrainian troops have been deploying some kind of chemical weapon against their units in Donbass, according to a local official.

Speaking to Russian television on Monday, Denis Pushilin, the acting governor of the Donetsk People’s Republic said his office has been receiving reports about possible chemical warfare “for at least two weeks.” Ukrainian troops have reportedly been deploying “chemical compounds that make our military service members ill,” he said.

Dmitry Peskov, the spokesman for the Kremlin, declined to discuss the allegation with journalists, saying that his office didn’t have accurate information about the issue.

He said the Russian military would pass such incidents up the chain of command and suggested contacting the Defense Ministry with further inquiries. The Defense Ministry did not immediately comment on the claim.

Speculation that some Ukrainian units may use air-dropped munitions with a chemical agent has been swirling on social media since mid-January. The rumors were apparently triggered by a video that surfaced showing people in Ukrainian military uniforms assembling small quad drones carrying small containers, with the payload apparently taken from a refrigerator. Some military experts suggested that whatever was used must have been volatile if it had to be stored at a low temperature.

Chemical warfare is forbidden under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), an international treaty that took effect in 1997 and to which both Ukraine and Russia are signatories. The military prohibition applies even to riot control agents, colloquially known as tear gas, though unlike other chemical weapons, the CWC allows such substances to be manufactured and used in law enforcement.

February 6, 2023 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Leave a comment