The Center For Countering Digital Hate
The assembling of a compelling and fair response to an infectious viral outbreak is an immense challenge. Ideally, unbiased experts without conflicts of interest develop a survey of potentially effective remedies. The team includes seasoned pathologists, broad-thinking social psychologists, experienced epidemiologists, holistic dieticians, and veteran practitioners of complementary and indigenous medicine.
Imagine a broadly trusted, well-meaning group gathering knowledge, and through consensus, generating recommendations and medical guidelines designed to have the greatest impact towards minimizing suffering. In making the best efforts to evaluate solutions and means of relief, they never lose sight of weighing risks versus benefits.
This did not happen. During the recent pandemic, all of those who considered or attempted to approach the crisis without the blessings of authorities were summarily belittled, repressed, and disgraced.
Many voices of reason were confounded by the enigmatic organization, the Center For Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). Their duplicitous activities were neither creative nor supportive, and simply aimed at destroying those who refused to agree with dogmatic mandates and protocols generated by the pharmaceutical industry.
At the peak of CCDH’s influence, they released a malicious piece of propaganda, called The Disinformation Dozen. The document was a frontal, full-scale attack on those who questioned the viability and motives of the mainstream response to the pandemic. This manifesto was conceived as a distractive and deceptive instrument — disseminated among the willing world press corps. Not only was the news media compromised by their funders, but they were also hungry for a scapegoat and eager to enthusiastically repeat easily drawn, though suspect conclusions.
The CCDH’s overt purpose was to stop any alternative thinking about how to respond to a viral outbreak. Their offense against those who failed to accept vaccines as a panacea presents a telling window into the boldness of authoritarian bullying over the last three years.
The Missouri v. Biden lawsuit alleges that the White House pressured social media to close accounts of pandemic policy dissenters. During discovery, Eric Waldo, the Senior Advisor to the Surgeon General admitted CCDH briefed their office before they pressured Facebook for more censorship.
Most recently CCDH has come under increased scrutiny with a lawsuit by Twitter claiming they are masquerading as a legitimate research firm and that they illegally obtained data to use it in a scare campaign to deter advertisers from the platform.
Concurrently, the publications and damage done by Imran Ahmed, the chief executive officer of CCDH, and his collaborators, are being examined by the House Judiciary Committee. The ongoing investigation into government censorship of alternative viewpoints during the pandemic has determined that CCDH’s activities are of interest. Ahmed was notified that he must supply all documents related to CCDH and its relationship with the federal government and social media companies.
CCDH purports to be a non-profit organization without political affiliation or funding, protecting the public from dangerous misinformation. As they face increasing scrutiny and pressure, a thorough examination of their origins and tactics reveals the mechanics of an organization whose mission is to censor enemies of the state and the pharmaceutical industry.
On The Attack
As the COVID crisis escalated, Ahmed assembled a primary list of competitors to Big Pharma; disparaging those who simply questioned a single prescribed solution. Without presenting evidence, The Disinformation Dozen claimed twelve individuals held the primary responsibility for vaccine hesitancy and thousands of deaths. While leaping to these conclusions, Ahmed also surmised that the motivation of anyone who expressed opinions that did not conform with industry and government — was financial. The report insists that sources of alternative information must be de-funded and de-platformed.
CCDH’s The Disinformation Dozen was preceded and followed by lesser-know reports and op-eds, including; The Anti-Vax Playbook, the Anti-Vax Industry, Substack & Anti-Vax Newsletters, Pandemic Profiteers, and How to Deal With Coronavirus Misinformation. This assembly of outright propaganda had a single intent: ending any dissent to unswerving allegiance to vaccine therapy.
Incredibly, there are no details in all of these publications that informs or assures the public about vaccine safety and effectiveness. What the CCDH reports all have in common is the assumption that vaccines are Big Pharma’s gift to mankind and that all other responses to infectious disease are heresy and worthy of scorn and condemnation. These assaults on dissenters are filled with strongly worded guidance, both for individuals and governments, urging people to resist and disregard those who dare counter the pharmaceutical narrative. Strikingly, the reports show complete indifference to free speech, lateral thinking, and medical autonomy.
CCDH leadership’s lack of qualifications in public health and epidemiology is indicative that their intentions and strategy are other than altruistic. Despite his organization’s goal to identify and counter digital hate, Imran Ahmed’s résumé reveals no recognition of medical or humanitarian ethics.
Not surprisingly, Ahmed has a history of blindly supporting Big Pharma’s dictates concerning the viability and safety of vaccines. For years, he and his associates have specialized in attacking anyone who doesn’t follow the narrow guidelines of pharmaceutical industry preferences.
Ahmed is not medically qualified and shows no understanding of healthcare. However, he has been a political operative and has worked behind the scenes for power brokers at the highest level.
Profiles In Deception
Of particular interest is a telling British political scandal dubbed, Brickgate. Ahmed had been working for MP Hilary Benn, another pharma cheerleader. During the brief challenge in 2016 to the Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbin, he became the communications director for Angela Eagle, an MP who was one of two possible replacements for Corbin. Ahmed was the point man on an allegation that a brick was thrown through a window in Eagle’s office, with the implication that she was being threatened by her political opponents. The UK press promoted the story, reporting on Ahmed’s accusations and outrage.
The facts proved otherwise. The window turned out to be in a shared stairwell and broken from the inside. A brick was never found, and a police inquiry determined it was very unlikely a hostile act. Whereas Ahmed undoubtedly knew these details, he attempted to portray a different story to gain political points for his boss.
This seemingly minor tale illustrates that the noble role Ahmed presents currently was preceded by his willingness to do whatever it takes to serve his masters. It also confirms that his work has been other than in the service of revealing truth.
Ahmed’s shadowy background and relationships with politicians, including his co-founder of CCDH, Morgan McSweeney, certainly do not qualify him to judge anyone’s ethical standards.
Within a few years of Brickgate, Ahmed followed his political godfather, McSweeney, in further machinations toward engineering the agenda of Labour Party leadership. Ahmed took the helm of CCDH, and McSweeney remains integral to the senior staff of MP Keir Starmer. He is a serving member of the vaccine-friendly Trilateral Commission, the current head of the Labour Party, and a likely future UK Prime Minister. Starmer was an early proponent of the COVID vaccine and has a close relationship with Lexington Communications, a lobbying firm that represents Pfizer. With the strong support of Starmer, the United Kingdom was the first country to release the Pfizer COVID vaccine. Even as it was rolled out, he pressed for government repression in a joint effort with CCDH, harassing those who dared to question vaccine safety and effectiveness.
Most of Ahmed’s cohorts all have common interests that have little to do with well-being.
Board Member and MP Damian Collins is another pro-Pharma devotee. Pfizer’s main UK plant was in Kent — Collin’s home district — and he was a strong proponent of the early release of their COVID vaccine. He is also directly associated with the military intelligence group, Integrity Initiative, and a member of the Henry Jackson Society, a secretive association that has connections with the CIA.
The fabric of CCDH’s personnel is embroidered with intelligence community assets. There is no better example of this than Ahmed’s communications director, Lindsay Moran, a self-declared former CIA operative, with experience in consulting for mainstream media. Her previous employment does not make her a criminal, though it does bring further into question the intent and operations of CCDH.
Considering Imran Ahmed’s credentials, known associates, and the profile of other CCDH figures, it can be asserted that there is more to the organization than its stated purpose. At a minimum, this background brings into serious doubt Ahmed’s ability to inform and advise the public in an unbiased manner.
Without awareness or mention of his political affiliations, Ahmed has been relied on for stories and quoted by many news outlets, who present CCDH as a pristine source of factual information.
In one glowing personal profile, his work is described in an article from 2021 on the Global Citizen website. Avoiding questions about his past work, Ahmed’s views are swallowed whole by the authors and repeated gleefully, including the outrageous claim that almost all COVID deaths are among the unvaccinated. The most telling information in the entire piece is at the end: This series was made possible with funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
It is important to evaluate this hagiographic portrait and consider that it is presented by Global Citizen, an international non-profit that does not hide ecstatic support of vaccination. According to its website, the organization’s central pursuit is raising and directing funds toward global poverty and health. Global Citizen sponsored a spectacular fundraising concert in 2021 called VAX Live — where among the luminaries who appeared among performers was President Biden, who described the crisis as a pandemic of the unvaccinated; perhaps the best advertising the pharmaceutical industry ever had. The concert successfully promoted and procured COVID-19 vaccines with funds raised by the event.
The Money Trail
Global Citizen has intimate relationships with the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the World Health Organization. These partners share a common interest in vaccine advancement and have gained undue influence over governments and the press. As political leadership floundered in the face of the building healthcare scare, these unelected power brokers stepped in to persuade the world that vaccination was the only remedy to consider.
CCDH insists that it does not take money from partisan organizations or receive government funds, however, this is difficult to confirm when they refuse to reveal all details of its funding. The world of non-profits has numerous routes for financing to be directed in ways to avoid scrutiny.
Some of the not-for-profit organizations that are partners with CCDH claim to have high-minded goals, yet support an organization that betrays indifference to freedom of expression. The Institute For Strategic Dialogue facilitates and defends CCDH in contrast to its stated mission:
The Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) is an independent, non-profit organisation dedicated to safeguarding human rights and reversing the rising tide of polarisation, extremism and disinformation worldwide.
ISD structure and membership betray a different agenda. Attacking those with dissenting opinions who question mainstream corporate concerns is a cause of the polarized environment that they claim to safeguard.
Evidence points to well-endowed philanthropic organizations with ties to the pharmaceutical industry propping up CCDH and their hostile scheming. Support also includes money funneled through the shady world of PR agencies that are paid millions by Big Pharma to promote their interests. The Paris-based, Publicis Groupe, has directed such resources, admitting to relationships with fact-checkers that support their client’s positions. CCDH and a similar entity, Newsguard, both depend on minimal scrutiny of the structure and motivation for their financing. The perception of these non-profits would change dramatically if the public realized how their presentations are influenced by money.
Although financing has yet to be tracked, there are signals that point to a possible Bill Gates — CCDH relationship. Ahmed instinctively and repeatedly protects Gates and consistently attacks those who question his motivation for supporting vaccination.
In the Anti-Vaxx Playbook, Ahmed claims Gates is attacked symbolically within a word slaw that sidesteps the powerful influence of the Gates Foundation:
Anti-vaccine campaigners have collaborated with alternative health entrepreneurs and conspiracists to ensure that global health philanthropist Bill Gates has become a symbolic figure that represents all of their attacks on the trustworthiness of vaccine advocates.
These attacks are not aimed at influencing the ongoing debate over a Covid vaccine, in which the role of Bill Gates takes a back seat to more practical issues. The real utility of this campaign of vilification is to create a symbol and associated memes that aid the communication of interrelated beliefs about Covid, vaccines and conspiracies.
Bill Gates has come to represent a complex of anti-vaxxer talking points and conspiracy theories. Virtually every element of the on line anti-vaxx movement has found ways of featuring him in their narratives, in a variety of contexts and tones.
This description is a conspicuous attempt to deflect well-deserved attention from Bill Gates, claiming so-called anti-vaxxers are simply mentioning his name as a talking point.
Contrary to where Ahmed would direct us, an examination of Gates is central to understanding how philanthropy, corporate influence, and profiteering form government policies. Attempts at blurring the role of Gates and his foundation as they support vaccines and COVID response policies reveal CCDH’s loyalty to protecting the milieu of its political and financial benefactors.
The philanthropic and corporate worlds’ support and reliance on CCDH is at the nucleus of this deceptive contrivance, enhancing the facade that protects CCDH from scrutiny.
There are a wide variety of theories about why this shaping of public perception is so important. One consequence is obvious; the fraud increases the amount of profits for the pharmaceutical industry and the billionaires who support vaccine sales. Financing organizations like CCDH is a necessity in the general plan to minimize public doubt about an immensely lucrative product.
CCDH is paid to manipulate sentiment without substantiation. It remains stunningly apparent that no supporting details, scientific reports, or verifiable sources of facts appear in any CCDH reports. They merely use the premise that vaccination is the only trustworthy solution for infectious diseases — to vilify their targets.
Defending The Indefensible
The repercussions of the antics of the pharmaceutical-philanthropic consortium are exhibited in this sordid tale. Yet the damning revelations about Imran Ahmed and CCDH are unreported as yet by a press corps that trusts and mimics a political hack.
There remains a wholesale and uncritical acceptance of CCDH while its ability to present an objective assessment of any medical or healthcare opinion is demonstrably biased. Their mission has no basis in exposing the truth, yet nodding promoters still acquiesce to their alleged veracity.
The growing evidence of connections between individuals and entities that promote vaccines and so-called fact-checkers underlines the degradation of news gathering and reporting. The willingness of the news media to accept and disseminate CCDH disinformation without scrutiny reveals these dynamics and the dangerous trend toward authoritarian censorship.
As CCDH faces legal consequences for its negligence and a congressional inquiry into its relationship with the government, the organization continues to manipulate the truth with deceptive lies. They must rely on the press and the public to remain blind to their duplicity.
As a response to the Twitter (X) lawsuit, in an open letter signed by its supporters, CCDH dares to invoke a threat to their rights to free speech;
We view these efforts as a threat to the right to the freedom of expression, resulting in a dangerous chilling effect on civil society, experts, and advocates – and ultimately the public, which deserves to know how X and similar platforms are spreading hate and disinformation.
The appeal ends with desperate phraseology that reflects the height of hypocrisy:
The misuse of the legal system and other forms of intimidation against researchers, experts, and advocates who seek to hold social media companies accountable is an attack of the right to freedom of expression and access to information and must cease. The bullying of those seeking to speak truth to power cannot be tolerated.
Indeed.
In attempting to defend themselves, these words further betray CCDH’s hypocrisy. And the list of those signing on to this rebuttal only indicates how deeply compromised the corporate world has become in pretending to have noble exploits.
It is most important to view the activities of CCDH from the broadest historical perspective.
Their censorship efforts are at the epicenter of an open collaboration between corrupt industrialists and compromised politicians; repressive methodology with hostile tactics display the apparatus and consequences of merging the corporate world with the government.
August 23, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | CIA, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Gates Foundation, Human rights, Rockefeller Foundation, UK, United States, WHO |
Leave a comment
It’s too late to propose questions to Tucker Carlson for his interview with Donald Trump, scheduled to air on Wednesday, August 23, 2023, because that interview has already been recorded.
In a fantasy world, here’s what I wish Carlson would ask:
- Before Covid, your Presidency was going pretty well. You had a good shot at winning another term. Would you agree that the pandemic pretty much reversed that?
- Actually, it wasn’t just the pandemic. It was your government’s response to the pandemic. The Democrats won by claiming you had botched the whole thing. They said hundreds of thousands of people died because you didn’t lock down soon enough and refused to wear a mask. They said the US should have behaved more like China than like Sweden. Do you agree?
- A lot of Republicans now think you should have run the pandemic more like DeSantis did in Florida (even though they might not have said it at the time). It seems to me that before March 10th, 2020, you were planning to run it that way. And you were listening to your public health advisors from the CDC and NIH. Is that correct?
- What was shocking to me was when you seemed to pivot 180 degrees in just a few days, from saying that it would not be worse than a bad flu season, to announcing that we would throw everything we had at it, locking down the whole country, and investing trillions of dollars in keeping the economy shut down. It was especially surprising that you agreed to the economic shutdown. What made you change your mind?
- I’m going to be more specific on this, because a lot of information has come out suggesting that you changed your mind because your National Security Council, and related military and intelligence operatives, told you the virus was a potential bioweapon that leaked from a Chinese lab. Is that what you were told? Did they tell you millions of people would die and you would be responsible, if you didn’t follow their plan?
- In a Time Magazine article you were quoted saying “I can’t tell you that” when you were asked about why you thought the virus came from a lab in Wuhan. You said “I’m not allowed to tell you that.” Who was not allowing you to speak openly about the possibility that it was a lab leak? Can you speak about it openly now?
- Can you tell me who made the decision in the middle of March to invoke the Stafford Act in all 50 states at the same time (which had never been done before), and to put FEMA in charge as the Lead Federal Agency for pandemic response, when FEMA had no warning and no experience in this area at all? Who decided to remove HHS from the role of Lead Federal Agency, which it was supposed to have according to every single pandemic planning document before Covid? Did you make those decisions or did the NSC or other military or intelligence advisors tell you to take those steps?
- When you brought Scott Atlas in, he advised you to open the country back up immediately. It seems like you really wanted someone in the White House with an opinion that was different from the one you were hearing in favor of lockdowns. But, for some reason, there was enormous resistance to bringing any experts in. There was even supposed to be a meeting at the end of March (long before Atlas arrived) with top epidemiologists that mysteriously got canceled. Why did you have so little control over who advised you about the pandemic? Why didn’t you follow the advice of Scott Atlas if, as he reported in his book, you pretty much agreed with him that the lockdowns were disastrous?
- Most people think Fauci was in charge of the pandemic response. But in his book, Dr. Atlas reports that you said the main problem wasn’t Fauci, it was Deborah Birx. Is that because Birx was in charge of coordinating the NSC/DHS response, and Fauci was just a front to make it seem like a public health response?
- A few months into the lockdowns, you sounded as if you had lost control of the situation, like in the tweet from May 18th 2020 when you wrote in all caps: REOPEN OUR COUNTRY! You’d think if anyone could have ended the lockdowns, it would have been the President. But you seemed to feel helpless to reverse what was happening. Is that because there had been a sort of silent coup of the NSC and Department and Homeland Security?
- If the answers to all the previous questions are classified, that would confirm that the response to Covid involved secret machinations of national security entities. Can you at least confirm that much?
- Some have suggested that the entire Covid response was launched as a way to make you look bad and make sure you did not get a second term. Do you agree? If so, who do you think was behind that plan?
- Were you aware of the massive censorship and propaganda that were happening to make people accept the lockdowns and vaccines? Do you feel like you were part of that campaign to convince people? Or do you feel like you were somehow forced to participate in it?
- Were you in touch with leaders of other allied countries to coordinate the response to the pandemic? It’s pretty astonishing how all our closest allies ended up doing exactly the same thing at the same time. If you were not the one who was coordinating with foreign leaders, were you aware of that type of coordination going on – especially with the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Germany, and other European allies?
And, of course, the most important question of all: Would you ever do such a thing again?
August 23, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Donald Trump, United States |
Leave a comment
The conspiracy of silence is obvious. Both political parties like it. The media likes it too because it was a main participant. Academia is compromised as much as the social media companies. Government bureaucrats want the entire fiasco to be a thing of the past, except to the extent it can serve as a template for the future. That leaves only independent voices to raise ever louder questions of the entire establishment.
We are of course speaking about the calamity commonly called Covid that robbed us all of liberty and rights, and kicked off this national and global crisis. All the major national problems the US faces today – inflation, learning loss, ill-health, cultural confusion, demographic disruption, professional instability, tech censorship, widespread substance abuse, and the loss of all trust in the commanding heights including the whole of government and every connected institution – trace to the lockdowns that began that fateful day of March 16, 2020 (oddly, the day following the Ides of March, when Caesar was killed).
It was a decision for the ages. Shouldn’t we know more about what led to it and why all of this happened? The person who wants all questions to go away the most is the person who hopes to reinhabit the White House, namely Donald Trump. Whether or not you support his return to power, the reality is that he presided over the largest and fastest loss of liberty in the history of this country.
No other president can compare, not Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Carter, or Obama. His administration, particularly in the last year, embarked on a new age of censorship, administrative state control over all our lives, astonishing levels of spending and redistribution, and massive invasion of our communities and homes. It attacked small business on a scale we’ve never seen, and seriously compromised even our basic rights to associate. The Biden administration was more of the same with new mandates.
Incredibly, Trump has somehow avoided questions about this. His supporters don’t want it discussed. This is likely why he is skipping the debate: fear that DeSantis will call him out. Neither do his opponents on the Democratic side want this discussed because they fully approve of what he did. His opponents in the primary are compromised too, particularly Mike Pence who led the charge within the Trump administration for lockdowns, mass purchases of PPE from China, nationwide distribution and deployment of killer ventilators, and being the biggest champion of Fauci/Birx, which we know because he wrote this in his book.
There are a whole host of questions about those fateful days leading to lockdowns. We are not getting answers because no one is asking the questions. All the people who are in a position to end the silence have a strong interest in perpetuating it for as long as possible, in hopes that mass amnesia takes hold and grants them all amnesty. Fauci is the model here: in his deposition in Missouri v. Biden, he testified that he could hardly remember anything. His hope is that everyone else will follow.
We have a small window in which to get answers during the primary season. Perhaps there will be a breakout at some point. There simply must be. Until there is some honesty and truth about what happened and why, we risk perpetuating all the crises of our times. And let’s be clear: there is not one credible study from anywhere in the world that demonstrates that lockdowns, and everything associated with them, were worth the astronomical cost. Indeed, every bit of evidence shows that the entire Covid response was a disaster. It will be repeated if there is no accountability and radical reform.
We know about the “germ games” of Event 201 and Crimson Contagion. The plans for locking down were already in the works. Covid was the excuse but did they seriously believe that this was the killer bioweapon for which they had prepared? We have documented proof that everyone knew that this virus was not massively deadly. We knew this from January 2020. If that wasn’t enough, we have data from the Diamond Princess that suggested that the infection fatality rate was nowhere near the 3-4 percent that the World Health Organization predicted.
What unleashed all this mania to end liberty as we know it? Tucker Carlson visited Trump at Mar-a-Lago on March 7, 2020. His message to Trump was to take the coronavirus seriously because it could be a bioweapon export from China. Tucker had heard this from a trusted source within the intelligence community whom he has yet to name. Tucker has since said that he very much regrets his role.
Trump listened and yet seemed unpersuaded. On March 9th, Trump tweeted out his intuition that this bug was flu-like and did not require extraordinary efforts by government. Two days later, however, Trump evidently changed his mind. “I am fully prepared to use the full power of the Federal Government to deal with our current challenge of the CoronaVirus,” he wrote in a complete about-face.
Whatever changed his mind likely happened on March 10, 2020. What was that? To whom did he speak and what did they say? By chance, was he told that this was indeed a bioweapon from China and yet the pharmaceutical companies were working on the antidote and all he needed to do was lock down until it arrived and then he could be the hero? Was that his thinking?
If that was not his thinking, what precisely did he hope to achieve by locking down the entire country by executive edict? How did he imagine that he was personally going to stop the spread of a virus in the US that was already everywhere on both coasts and likely had been for the prior six months? Did it ever occur to him to call up some independent experts on infectious disease? If not, why not?
Two days later, he ordered a stop to all flights to and from Europe, the UK, and Australia. He announced this in a televised address that evening. When he was giving this address – which looked like a hostage video – did it ever occur to Trump that he was embarking on an exercise of government power never before seen? Millions of families and travel plans were shredded and panic ensued throughout the world. What led him to believe that it was within his legal rights as president to do that?
On March 13, Trump’s own Health and Human Services issued a document on the pandemic plans. It was marked confidential but came to be released months later. Incredibly, this policy document not only declared a national emergency but made it very clear that the rule-making power for pandemic management would rest with the National Security Council. That’s the intelligence community. The public health agencies of the CDC and NIH were reduced in power to deal with implementation and operations but they were not in charge.
Did Trump know what was happening around him? Did anyone come to him and tell him of this large document, which, to this day, is the only blueprint we have for what government was trying to do with its Covid response? Had he ever seen this before publishing? If so, did it not strike him as odd that the National Security Council would be given primacy over the public health agencies themselves?
That weekend, March 14-15, 2020, every report we have says that Trump huddled in the White House with son-in-law Jared Kushner, two of Jared’s college buddies, Anthony Fauci, Deborah Birx, and Mike Pence. Whom else did he consult on this weekend? At this point, national security had already been given primacy in policy, so surely the military and intelligence community were represented at the White House. Who and what did they say?
According to Kushner, the decisive voice in putting together the lockdown plans was Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb, who had previously headed Trump’s own FDA. He is said to have been on the phone with Trump. According to Kushner, Gottlieb told him: “They should go a little bit further than you are comfortable with… When you feel like you are doing more than you should, that is a sign that you are doing them right.”
How much did Gottlieb’s opinion matter to Trump and did Trump ever consider perhaps that Gottlieb, as the voice of Pfizer, might have had a conflict of interest? What else does Trump remember about this weekend?
All of this really matters because on Monday, March 16, Trump held a national press conference together with Fauci and Birx. At this event, they handed out a PDF to the press which in turn was issued to every public health agency in the country. It read in part: “Bars, restaurants, food courts, gyms, and other indoor and outdoor venues where groups of people congregate should be closed.”
That sounds like a federal edict to close churches, schools, and essentially put the entire country under house arrest. Indeed, the restrictions on human association also pertained to houses, which in many states were restricted in the number of people who could gather inside them. Only one state, South Dakota, refused to go along.
During the press conference, Trump waffled a bit on whether he was shutting everything down but Fauci stepped in to clarify that, yes, the Trump administration was in fact shutting down the whole country, Bill of Rights be damned.
At the very moment when Fauci was reading these sentences from the microphone, Trump was standing to his side but was suddenly distracted by someone or something in the audience. He waved and smiled, almost as if he either did not want to hear what Fauci was saying or did not care. To whom was he waving and why?
Did Trump even know about the edict that was being issued that day, that he was effectively using his power as president to close churches and impose universal quarantine on the population? If so, how was this consistent with his promise to make America great again?
The next day, the Trump team got busy on hospital protocols, which amounted to the mass production and distribution of ventilators plus giving out the deadly drug Remdesivir. Who was it that told Trump that intubating people was the best way to deal with this virus? Why did they believe that, given that people who are intubated are very likely to die either from the procedure or the secondary bacterial infection that likely followed?
Trump invoked the Defense Production Act to force companies to make more ventilators, which they did. Today these are mostly scrap metal, of course, and most hospitals and doctors abandoned the practice once it became clear that it was killing thousands. Why did Trump seize on this whole idea to begin with? Who was advising him and why did it not occur to him to call any one of thousands of people with hands-on specializations in respiratory viruses for a second opinion?
As late as April 30, 2020, Trump was still pushing lockdowns as the solution. He even criticized Sweden for not locking down. As the summer approached and many people violated lockdown orders to protest the George Floyd killing, it seems like Trump began to wonder if he had been hoodwinked.
If Fauci and Birx tricked him into wrecking his presidency and the country, why not just admit that? If he swears that he was right to greenlight lockdowns, why should voters trust that he would not do it again? What does he believe the limits to government power are?
Even as late as July 20, 2020, Trump was still claiming that he would “defeat” the virus, this time with facemasks. “It is Patriotic to wear a face mask when you can’t socially distance,” he wrote.
Moving to the fall, Trump wisely allowed himself to be schooled in medical realities by Scott Atlas, who arrived at the White House to talk some sense into the crazy people who were running the show. Trump seems to have been convinced. But meanwhile, the whole country was in ruins with millions of businesses closed, the kids not in school, and the whole population in a state of trauma at the loss of liberty.
There were two months remaining before the November 2020 election. During his campaign stops, he dropped the lockdowns, called for openings, but largely left the subject off the stump speech entirely, as if nothing had ever happened. Going into the election, Covid was largely off the agenda but for the media and Democrats who urged further lockdowns, which they implemented once in power.
Trump should explain what was going through his head during these months. Did he know what was actually going on in the country, how many businesses had been boarded up, how many kids denied in-person education, how many churches were closed, how many families had been broken up with travel restrictions? Further, did he worry that his spending and money-printing policies, plus trillions in stimulus payments, would fuel inflation after he left office?
We still cannot get a fix on how it came to be that the shots were widely mandated on people who never needed them. Nor is there an honest discussion of the resulting job losses, injuries, and deaths that resulted. Did these mandates come about simply because too many Americans thought better than allowing a stranger to inject them with a mystery potion ginned up in a lab and deployed ten times faster than any vaccine in history? Was there an industrial interest in forcing compliance? If so, that’s next-level corruption.
As for masking that all science knew for certain would be ineffective for stopping the spread of a respiratory pathogen, were they merely symbols imposed to scare the public? This is truly dystopian.
This is just the start of the unanswered questions. The Norfolk Group has raised many more.
Some independent journalists with access to the candidates, and this includes even Biden but certainly also every Republican who expects to earn votes, must get up to speed on the details of this calamity. It is simply unthinkable that this country, born of the ideal of freedom, would have undergone a quiet coup against liberty and the Constitution, and yet there be no serious discussion of what happened, much less reform efforts to restore what we lost.
All of this is more important than January 6, election doubting, or tribal partisan bickering. As curious as these topics are, they are distractions from that which should interest us all: the status of freedom in America and the enforcement of the Bill of Rights. Every day, the censorship continues and every day the plots against the common good are ongoing. The kids are suffering as never before. The economic crisis still surrounds us and can get much worse. All the agencies that did this enjoy more funding than ever before.
We are supposed to live in an age of information. It takes herculean efforts to bring about silence on the most important questions of our time. But thus far, all the major institutions are managing to pull it off. This cannot be allowed to continue.
Jeffrey A. Tucker is Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Liberty or Lockdown, and thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.
August 23, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Anthony Fauci, Covid-19, Deborah Birx, Donald Trump, Mike Pence, National Security Council, United States |
Leave a comment
French Polynesian President Moetai Brotherson has condemned French President Emmanuel Macron for failing to offer even a “symbolic” apology for decades of nuclear weapons tests on the Pacific archipelago.
Speaking to Russia’s RTVI in an interview published on Tuesday, Brotherson said: “193 nuclear tests were carried out on our soil – tests that we did not ask for, and about which we were not even properly informed, because at that time the inhabitants of Polynesia did not know about the level of danger.”
“Today we are still dealing with dire consequences [and] there are people who get sick and die because of nuclear tests,” he continued. “Therefore, such a symbolic action as Emmanuel Macron’s apology was so important [and] we wondered why he did not do this.”
After detonating nearly two dozen atomic bombs in Algeria during the early 1960s, France shifted its nuclear testing to its overseas territories in the Pacific, namely the French Polynesian atolls of Mururoa and Fangataufa. In total, 193 tests were carried out around the coral islands, causing a spike in thyroid cancer cases and exposing more than 100,000 inhabitants to high radiation levels, according to a 2021 review of government documents by Disclose, an investigative news site.
Both atolls remain uninhabitable to this day, and the French government has paid compensation to only 63 civilians for radiation exposure.
Macron visited French Polynesia in 2021 and declared that France owed residents of the archipelago a “debt” for the decades-long testing program. However, he did not offer an apology, and did not address the issue when he met with Brotherson in Paris earlier this summer.
“We did not expect an apology from President Macron in person, as a private individual,” Brotherson told RTVI. However, the Polynesian leader said that he would have been satisfied with “an expression of the political position of France as a state in relation to what happened, expressed by its president.”
French Polynesia’s 121 islands and atolls are a part of France’s overseas territories, a group of 13 lands under direct or semi-direct French administration that make up the remnants of its former colonial empire.
French Polynesia is semi-autonomous, and although Brotherson is a proponent of full independence, he told RTVI that he doesn’t predict any change to the status quo in the near future.
“I believe that if we held an independence referendum tomorrow, the majority would vote against it,” he said. “The people are not ready yet. Today all teachers in Polynesia are paid by France. Part of the healthcare system is financed, of course, by Paris. The communes are partly financed by France. Therefore, such questions about the future are quite natural.”
August 23, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Environmentalism, Militarism | France, French Polynesia |
Leave a comment
It’s been an astonishing couple of days for German judges. Well, “astonishing” if you’ve been living in a cave for the last four years.
Many of you likely already know that satirist and playwright (and frequent OffG contributor) CJ Hopkins is being prosecuted in Germany for “disseminating propaganda, the contents of which are intended to further the aims of a former National Socialist organization,”
All because the cover of his book has a swastika on it.
Needless to say, the charges are absurd. Insultingly so. You can read CJ’s first-hand account of this nonsense here and here.
Anyone who isn’t a) stupid or b) delusional can plainly see these charges have nothing to do with a stock-image swastika, and everything to do with the content of the book. In short, they are politically motivated charges brought against an author for criticizing the state. The very essence of dystopian tyranny.
… and yesterday he was convicted.
He now faces 60 days in prison or a 3600 Euro fine.
That’s case one, and as we say one you are likely familiar with if you’re regular readers.
Something you probably haven’t heard is that, just this morning, a different German court sentenced a former judge to two years in prison.
His crime? Ruling that mask mandates in schools were not constitutional.
The case dates back to April 8th 2021, when Weimar District Family Court judge Christiaan Dettmar ruled that two schools in the district a) could not enforce mask mandates, b) must continue in-person classes and c) could not force pupils to test for “Covid”.
From Human Rights Blog :
The court case was a child protection case under to § 1666 paragraph 1 and 4 of the German Civil Code (BGB), which a mother had initiated for her two sons, aged 14 and 8 respectively, at the local Family Court. She had argued that her children were being physically, psychologically and pedagogically damaged without any benefit for the children or third parties. At the same time, she claimed this constituted a violation of a range of rights of the children and their parents under the law, the German constitution (Grundgesetz or Basic Law) and international conventions.
After listening to testimony from expert witnesses, the judge ruled in favour of the mother, writing in his verdict:
These are the risks [to mask mandates]. The children are not only endangered in their mental, physical and psychological well-being by the obligation to wear face masks during school hours and to keep their distance from each other and from other persons, but they are also already being harmed. At the same time, this violates numerous rights of the children and their parents under the law, the constitution and international conventions.
Two weeks after handing down this ruling, his home and office were raided by the police and his mobile phone was seized.
And now, two years later, he was found guilty of “judicial misconduct” and initially given two years in prison (the court has since suspended the sentence). “Judicial Misconduct”, for simply disagreeing with the government.
Free speech is the first and most vital liberty, without it no one is truly free. An independent judiciary is a must to preserve any kind of justice, judges who simply nod along with government edicts are the building blocks of authoritarian states.
The voice of the people and the power of the courts – ideally – work together to hold the government to account.
And yet, whether in the judiciary or the arts, the German legal system is now a machine for criminalizing and punishing dissent of any kind.
… I’d make a comparison to another German government that used to function in a similar way, but I really can’t afford a 4000 euro fine.
August 23, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Germany, Human rights |
Leave a comment
Ukraine should hasten to end hostilities with Russia before the flow of American military and financial aid to the country dries up, a former aide to two Ukrainian presidents has said.
In a video on his YouTube channel posted on Tuesday, Oleg Soskin, who served as an economic adviser to Leonid Kravchuk and Leonid Kuchma in the 1990s, described the US as “the key country” in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, arguing that if it cuts off its military assistance to Kiev, the latter will sign some kind of agreement with Moscow “within days.”
Against this backdrop, Soskin suggested that the US Congress may refuse to rubberstamp the request of US President Joe Biden to provide Kiev with an additional $24 billion in assistance, citing reports of growing reluctance among Republicans to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia.
“Basically, this means that the House [of Representatives] will not pass this $24 billion. They think the situation is at a complete impasse. That’s why Ukraine won’t get any money,” he said.
If the US, which has already provided Kiev with tens of billions of dollars in various forms of aid, were to stop helping Ukraine, its NATO allies, including Germany, Britain and all other European countries, would follow suit, crippling Kiev’s military potential, the ex-official noted.
“I think that [Ukraine] should stop before the US does that,” Soskin said, suggesting that “there should be a meeting of smart people in Ukraine who would be more forward-looking” than Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and his small group of what he called “war chanters.”
Soskin also noted that the Ukrainian army has already lost the backbone of its seasoned troops, with replacements being prone to serious morale issues. He said that Kiev is forcibly drafting inexperienced soldiers who are reluctant to fight. “Ukrainians lack the motivation they had in the past year and a half,” he pointed out, suggesting that, under these conditions, Kiev stands little chance against the Russian army.
The ex-official’s comments come on the heels of a recent Politico report that said “even pro-Ukraine Republicans are hedging against supporting” a new assistance package for Ukraine, with Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland noting that Kiev “can’t win the war and, therefore, the US should reconsider further stocking its defenses.”
August 23, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Economics, Militarism | Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
Ukraine will be unable to defeat Russia on the battlefield as Moscow has more men and an “impressive” advantage in firepower, retired Italian general Marco Bertolini has said.
“The Ukrainian victory is inconceivable. We must take note of this fact and sit at the negotiating table,” said Bertolini, who headed Italy’s Joint Operations Command and the Folgore paratroopers brigade in the 2000s.
“This war should’ve been stopped much earlier, but in recent months the rhetoric of ‘we will win’ has been cultivated, fueling the expectations in the public opinion of a victory that is impossible on the ground. The Ukrainians will not prevail,” he told Libero Quotidiano newspaper on Monday.
Kiev’s much-anticipated counteroffensive, which started in early June, “proceeds slowly,” the retired general remarked.
He mentioned a report by the Washington Post last week, which cited a classified US intelligence assessment that concluded “Ukraine’s counteroffensive will fail to reach the key southeastern city of Melitopol,” and that the aim of severing Russia’s land bridge with Crimea would not be realized this year. According to Bertolini, this was “an acknowledgment that Kiev’s objectives can’t be achieved in the expected form and time frame.”
“The Russians have an advantage in the number of men and firepower. The firepower unleashed by the Russians, especially when it comes to artillery, is superior and this is impressive considering the aid that has arrived in Ukraine from all over the West,” he said.
The retired general suggested that there’s now an understanding in many circles that reclaiming territories captured by Russia from Ukraine is “unrealistic.” He also pointed out that “a ceasefire with the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO, at any moment, and resuming hostilities won’t suffice for the Russians.”
“The conflict can only be ended through negotiations” in which the interests of both sides are respected, Bertolini said.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said last week that Moscow remains ready for “meaningful dialogue” on Ukraine, but the prospects for negotiations with the West “are non-existent at this stage.” Kiev’s main backer, the US, which declared the goal of inflicting a strategic defeat to Russia in Ukraine, “has no intention of ending the conflict,” he insisted.
Washington maintains that any negotiated settlement must be based on the so-called ten-point peace plan proposed by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, which calls for Russia to withdraw to borders claimed by Kiev, pay reparations, and submit to war crimes tribunals. Lavrov described this as a “pointless ultimatum.”
August 23, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Militarism | Russia, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
BEIJING – BRICS member states should proactively offer their mediation services for pressing issues and promote their political resolution, Chinese Chairman Xi Jinping stated on Wednesday.
“We should support each other on the issues of interest for each of us, strengthen coordination on main international and regional issues, actively mediate in resolving pressing issues and promote political settlement,” Xi said at a plenary session of the BRICS summit in Johannesburg.
The Chinese chairman also called on fellow BRICS leaders to stand against economic coercion and focus on common development through cooperation.
“We should expand political cooperation, strengthen ties in security, while maintaining peace and stability,” Xi added.
BRICS — the group uniting the world’s largest developing economies, namely, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — is holding its annual top-level summit in Johannesburg from Tuesday to Thursday.
August 23, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Solidarity and Activism | BRICS, China |
Leave a comment
Attempts by the West to maintain its hegemony were the key cause of the conflict in Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin has claimed. He added that members of the BRICS group of nations reject the idea of exceptionalism.
“We are against any hegemony, the notion of exceptionalism promoted by some nations, and the policy of neocolonialism derived from that claim,” the Russian leader said on Wednesday during a speech via video link to a summit of BRICS leaders in South Africa.
The BRICS group, which includes Brazil, China, India, Russia, and South Africa, firmly believes in “the formation of a multipolar world order, truly just and based on international law,” Putin stated.
Explaining the origins of the Ukraine crisis, Putin accused Western powers of facilitating the “anti-constitutional coup” in Kiev in 2014. After seizing power, the new Ukrainian authorities “unleashed a war” against those who rejected them, Putin said.
“Our actions in Ukraine have but one motive: to put an end to this war that the West and its satellites in Ukraine started against the people living in Donbass,” the president stressed.
He conveyed Moscow’s gratitude to BRICS members, which he said are working to resolve the situation “in a fair way through peaceful means.”
Russia deployed troops against Ukraine in February 2022, stating that its goals were to stop Kiev’s attacks on Donbass, ensure Ukrainian military neutrality, and eliminate radical nationalist forces. The US and its allies have claimed that Moscow’s military action was “unprovoked,” and have pledged to arm and fund Kiev for “as long as it takes” to defeat Russia.
Moscow has identified NATO’s expansion in Eastern Europe and particularly its increasing influence in Ukraine as a major threat to Russian national security. In 2021, the Russian government sought to negotiate with the West to address those concerns, but its efforts were rejected.
August 23, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | NATO, Russia, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
By Lucas Leiroz | August 23, 2023
Showing political realism, a major Austrian official criticized the European Union’s efforts to “cancel” Russia, recalling the role of geography in determining Europe’s policy towards Russia. In fact, the current crisis in relations between Russia and Western Europe is due to the end of the pragmatic search for good diplomatic ties with Moscow, which tends to be a “suicidal” policy considering that Europe and Russia are geographically close and will always have to maintain dialogue to guarantee regional peace.
The statement was made by the Austrian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Alexander Schallenberg, at an international panel discussion organized by a university in Spain on August 22nd. According to him, it is not possible to create an efficient security architecture for Europe without Russia, considering both the geographical proximity and the relevant military and economic role played by Russia. Therefore, he is against the anti-Russian isolation campaign, believing it to be an inefficient and anti-strategic policy for Europe itself.
“Whatever happens, Russia will be our biggest geographic neighbor. Whatever happens, it will probably be still number one as far as nuclear warheads are concerned. It is still a permanent member of the Security Council of the UN (…) We cannot cancel Russia. We cannot do ghosting on it”, he said during the event.
At the event, Schallenberg mentioned the legacy of Egon Bahr, an important 20th Century German diplomat, notorious for his attempt to bring West and Eastern Europe closer during the Cold War’s bipolarity. Bahr’s doctrine is known as “Ostpolitik“, being summarized in the permanent search for the normalization of ties between Europe and Russia, given the inevitability of dialogue due to geographical proximity. Bahr said that “America is irreplaceable, but Russia is unmovable”, something Schallenberg seems to agree with.
It is important to note that Schallenberg is obviously not “pro-Russian”, but a European official concerned about the future of his own region. At the event, which was also attended by EU top diplomat Josep Borrell and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba, Schallenberg severely criticized Russia, blaming it for the conflict and endorsing the Western narrative that Moscow violated international law by “invading” Ukraine. Furthermore, Schallenberg also reminded the conflict with Georgia in 2008, calling it another violation of international norms.
At a certain point in his speech, Schallenberg even asked: “What in heaven has to happen for us to actually trust this country again?”, clearly showing the “lack of trust” that Europeans have in Russia today – despite the fact that until now only the EU, not Moscow, has acted hostilely in bilateral relations. Also, Schallenberg tried to justify the policy of aid that Austria has been giving to Ukraine. He said that, despite being neutral, Austria advocates a rules-based global order, which is why aid would be “justified”. Until now, Vienna has not sent weapons to Kiev, but has spent millions on financial and humanitarian aid to the Ukrainian side, which sounds like hypocrisy when the Russian population is also affected by the conflict, being simply ignored by the West.
However, despite condemning Russia, Schallenberg shows realistic pragmatism by considering Moscow necessary for the success of European security. He argues that, despite the disagreements, Europe and Russia must work together to build a mutually favorable security architecture, recovering the principles of Bahr’s “Ostpolitik”, which has now been completely abandoned by the EU in favor of automatic alignment with the US. In addition, Schallenberg emphasized that by excluding Russia from European diplomacy, the EU ends up also excluding Central Asia and the Southern Caucasus. In other words, instead of isolating Russia, Europe is isolating itself with its policies.
Schallenberg’s words sound like hope for a resurgence of realism and political pragmatism in the EU. In the midst of so many unnecessary hostilities, including even informal declarations of war, it is positive to see that there are still diplomats who advocate classic principles of peaceful coexistence, ignoring the irrational attempts to apply the “cancel culture” in international relations. However, this is still insufficient.
Russian-European dialogue will not be possible as long as the EU continues to believe in a “rules-based global order”. For any serious specialist in international law, it seems evident that the so-called “rules” are imposed to defend the interests of the West, this “global order” being nothing more than a system of geopolitical unipolarity led by the US. Europe has been collaborating with this system for decades, passively accepting to submit to American orders, even when these violate Europe’s own interests – as we can see in the Ukrainian case.
To really live peacefully with Russia, Europe needs to break with this kind of mentality and understand the importance of the rise of a multipolar world. Only in a polycentric geopolitical system will it be possible for Europe to adequately coexist with Russia, since then it will no longer be subservient to the orders of a hegemonic power. More than that, only in a multipolar world will Europe itself be able to become a relevant center of power, capable of defending its own interests.
You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.
August 23, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Russophobia | European Union, Russia |
Leave a comment
They want to obtain the National Practitioner Data Bank
Do the feds want to be ready to censor or even round up doctors who may oppose their next round of heavy-handed “public health” measures?
Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The NPDB acts primarily
as a flagging system; its principal purpose is to facilitate
comprehensive review of practitioners' professional credentials and
background. Information is collected from, and disseminated to,
eligible entities (entities that are entitled to query and/or report to
the NPDB as authorized in Title 45 CFR part 60 of the Code of Federal
Regulations) on the following: (1) medical malpractice payments, (2)
licensure actions taken by Boards of Medical Examiners, (3) state
licensure and certification actions, (4) federal licensure and
certification actions, (5) negative actions or findings taken by peer
review organizations or private accreditation entities, (6) adverse
actions taken against clinical privileges, (7) federal or state
criminal convictions related to the delivery of a health care item or
service, (8) civil judgments related to the delivery of a health care
item or service, (9) exclusions from participation in federal or state
health care programs, and (10) other adjudicated actions or decisions.
It is intended for NPDB information to be considered with other
relevant information in evaluating credentials of health care
practitioners, providers, and suppliers.
Likely Respondents: Eligible entities or individuals that are
entitled to query and/or report to the NPDB as authorized in
regulations found at 45 CFR part 60.
I have a black mark in the NPDB despite lack of a completed hearing — the demand for a psych evaluation and temp suspension gave me the black mark.
August 22, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance |
Leave a comment
In 2013, the National Vaccine Program Office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) commissioned an update of earlier findings on the lack of evidence to support claims that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) infant/child vaccination schedule was safe.
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee, charged with producing the update, found that “few studies have comprehensively assessed the association between the entire immunization schedule or variations in the overall schedule and categories of health outcomes, and no study has directly examined health outcomes and stakeholder concerns in precisely the way that the committee was charged to address in its statement of task.”
According to the IOM committee, “studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.”
The lack of information on the overall safety of the vaccination schedule was so compelling that the committee then recommended HHS incorporate the study of the safety of the overall childhood immunization schedule into its processes for setting priorities for research, “recognizing stakeholder concerns, and establishing the priorities on the basis of epidemiological evidence, biological plausibility, and feasibility.”
The IOM also recommended the CDC use its private database, the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), to study the overall health effects of the vaccination schedule using retrospective analyses.
Ten years later, the CDC has yet to do such a comparison study, even though it is sitting on a vast repository of data in the VSD, which include comprehensive medical records for more than 10 million individuals and 2 million children.
The VSD also contains records for a significant number of unvaccinated children, yet the CDC refuses to compare the health outcomes of vaccinated children to completely unvaccinated children.
The CDC also prohibits VSD outside researchers from accessing the VSD data so they can do the studies.
I was fortunate enough to be one of the researchers who had VSD access as I worked with Dr. Mark R. Geier and his son, David Geier, on a series of studies on thimerosal-containing vaccines in the early 2010s.
However, the CDC subsequently revoked the Geiers’ access because one of the health maintenance organizations (HMO) participating in the VSD project did not like the results the Geiers were obtaining, tying thimerosal exposure to a variety of childhood chronic disorders including autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), birth defects, acute ethylmercury poisoning, fetal/infant/childhood death, premature puberty, emotional disturbance, tic disorder and developmental delays.
In Chapter 2 of “Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak,” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and I present the very few studies completed on the entire infant/child vaccination schedule, including the groundbreaking study, “Pilot Comparative Study on the Health of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated 6- to 12-Year-Old U.S. Children,” by Anthony Mawson, doctor in public health.
Mawson and his co-authors studied fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated and unvaccinated home-schooled children for both infectious and chronic disease incidence.
Not only were chronic diseases more prominent in fully and partially vaccinated children — where the incidence of these diseases ranged from 30 times higher for allergic rhinitis to 3.7 times for neurodevelopmental disorders — but there also was a higher prevalence of infectious diseases like pneumonia and ear infections in vaccinated children.
In a separate 2017 study, “Preterm Birth, Vaccination and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: a Cross-Sectional Study of 6- to 12-Year-Old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children,” Mawson et al. also found that the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders among vaccinated children was compounded by low birth weight.
Low birth weight, vaccinated children were 14.5 times more likely to get a diagnosis compared to unvaccinated, normal birth weight children.
I also completed two studies with Neil Z. Miller on vaccinated versus unvaccinated children using medical records from six separate pediatric practices.
Our first study, “Analysis of Health Outcomes in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children: Developmental Delays, Asthma, Ear Infections and Gastrointestinal Disorders,” published in 2020, focused on vaccines administered during the first year of life and specific diagnoses occurring after the first birthday.
Those children who received one or more vaccines during their first year of life were 2.2 times more likely to be diagnosed with a developmental delay, 4.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with asthma and 2.1 times more likely to suffer from ear infections when compared to unvaccinated children.
In our second study, “Health Effects in Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Children, with Covariates for Breastfeeding Status and Type of Birth,” published in 2021, we compared fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated and unvaccinated children for incidence of autism, ADHD, asthma, chronic ear infections, severe allergies and gastrointestinal disorders.
Most notably, fully vaccinated children were 5 times more likely to be diagnosed with autism, 17.6 times more likely to be diagnosed with asthma, 20.8 times more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD and 27.8 times more likely to be diagnosed with chronic ear infections compared to completely unvaccinated children.
In a separate analysis within this same study, we changed the statistical model to reflect breastfeeding status and type of birth (normal or Cesarean). Breastfed unvaccinated children fared much better than non-breastfed vaccinated children when comparing the incidence of autism, asthma, ADHD, gastrointestinal disorders, severe allergies and chronic ear infections.
We obtained similar results when investigating the type of birth and vaccination status.
James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D., and Dr. Paul Thomas also published a study in 2021, “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination,” investigating children in Thomas’ Portland, Oregon, pediatric practice.
This study compared the relative incidence of office visits for different disorders between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Lyons-Weiler and Thomas found significant increases in office visits among vaccinated children for fever, ear infections, conjunctivitis, asthma, breathing issues, anemia, eczema, behavioral issues, gastroenteritis, weight/eating disorders and respiratory infections.
Notably, there were no ADHD diagnoses among unvaccinated children, whereas the rate of diagnosis among vaccinated children was 5.3%.
Unfortunately, the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health retracted the study on the basis of a lone, anonymous complaint. Lyons-Weiler and Thomas were not allowed to rebut the complainant’s concerns regarding the healthcare-seeking behavior of families of unvaccinated children.
However, Lyons-Weiler fired back with Dr. Russell Blaylock in their 2022 paper, “Revisiting Excess Diagnoses of Illnesses and Conditions in Children Whose Parents Provided Informed Permission to Vaccinate Them,” published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research — an article in which the authors definitively showed that vaccinated children tended to visit their pediatrician more not less than unvaccinated children, which affirmed their original analysis.
Chapter 2 of “Vax-Unvax” also highlights the 2022 study, “Association Between Aluminum Exposure From Vaccines Before Age 24 Months and Persistent Asthma at Age 24 to 59 Months,” by CDC scientists who used the VSD to calculate the level of aluminum exposure in infant vaccines administered up to 2 years of age.
The authors compared the health outcomes of children exposed to more than 3 milligrams of aluminum in their vaccines versus those exposed to less than 3 milligrams of aluminum.
Although this was not a true “vax-unvax” study as there was no unvaccinated control group (the CDC never includes one, unfortunately), Kennedy and I decided to include it in the book because of the study’s alarming findings.
The study authors found that children exposed to higher levels of aluminum were 1.36 times as likely to be diagnosed with persistent asthma prior to their 5th birthday.
Children diagnosed with eczema and exposed to the higher level of aluminum fared even worse and were 1.61 times as likely to be diagnosed with persistent asthma prior to their 5th birthday.
Each of these results was statistically significant, leading us to wonder what the risk of asthma would have been if the CDC had chosen to compare vaccinated children exposed to aluminum to an unvaccinated cohort of children.
“Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak” will be released Aug. 29 and is available for preorder on Amazon, Barnes & Noble and other online booksellers.
Brian S. Hooker, Ph.D., is senior director of science and research at Children’s Health Defense and professor emeritus of biology at Simpson University in Redding, California.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
August 22, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Book Review, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | ADHD, Asthma, Autism, CDC, United States |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
Aletho News 